Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

STANDING ORDERS.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): I beg to move,
That the Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, as set out in the Schedule attached hereto, be approved:

SCHEDULE.

Standing Order 39, page 114, line 3, leave out "and."

Line 4, at the end, insert "and at the Ministry of Works and Planning."

Lines 17 to 20, leave out paragraph (5).

Page 115, lines 39 and 40, leave out "and at the Office of the Commissioners of Works."

Page 116, line 25, add "( ) of every Bill extending to Scotland at the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland."

Standing Order 71, page 136, line 14, after "situate," insert "the first of such insertions being not earlier than the fourth day of December."

Line 18, leave out "Ten," and insert "Twenty-one."

Line 19, after "meeting," insert "stating the offices at which copies of the Bill may be inspected and obtained, and."

Page 137, line 5, leave out "seventh," and insert "twenty-first," and leave out "last," and insert "first."

Page 138, line 15, at the end, add,—

Provided that in the case of a Bill for which the Petition is deposited, or proposed to be deposited, by leave of the House, after the Twenty-seventh day of November, the foregoing provisions of this Order shall apply, subject to the following modifications:

(a) the first insertion of the advertisement calling the meeting shall be not earlier than the date of the deposit of such petition; and
(b) the circular to proprietors shall be sent by post or delivered not earlier than the date specified in the notice containing a concise summary of the purposes of the Bill as the date on which copies of the Bill may be inspected and obtained.

Standing Order 80, page 152, line 26, leave out from "proved," to "In," on page 153, line 3, and insert "In cases where provisions which were not contained in the Bill as introduced into Parliament are sought to be inserted upon petition for additional provision, the original notices shall not be held to apply to the additional provisions proposed to be inserted.""

In moving the Motion which stands in my name referring to certain Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills may I say that there is no question of fundamental principle arising in any way in regard to these Amendments. Hon. Members who are interested will know that alterations to Standing Orders relating to Private Business are not uncommon. The purposes of these Amendments to three Standing Orders are, in the case of Standing Order No. 39, ones which deal with the deposit of copies of Private Bills at certain Government offices. In the case of Standing Order No. 71, it is to deal with a sort of slip which appears to have been made in the Standing Orders with the result that it has been possible in the past for what are known as the Wharncliffe meetings to be held before the Bill is available. That is now corrected by these Amendments. The third one is only a re-wording of a passage in that Order to bring it into line with existing procedure in regard to the deposit of Private Bills.

These Amendments have all been drafted on the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Counsel, who advises the Chairman of Ways and Means in this matter, after consultation with the Parliamentary Agents, and, as far as is necessary, with the Lord Chairman and his adviser in another place. I hope, therefore, the House will find no difficulty in passing them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING TRADES (REGULATION).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour whether the catering trade is included in the provision of the National Service Acts under which it is provided that, after the war, it is the obligation of the employer to reinstate employees under conditions not less favourable than when they left for war service; and whether he will postpone until after the war, when these employees are reinstated, any attempt to impose regulating machinery upon the industry?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The provisions of the National


Service Acts regarding re-instatement do not distinguish between different trades and industries; and I am unable to agree that the existence of certain rights of reinstatement affords any ground for distinguishing between the catering and other employments in the need for regulation of terms and conditions of service.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that the present Government were formed with the sole object of winning the war, and is it not highly undesirable that contentious legislation should be brought in unless it is absolutely necessary, and it is admitted that this is not necessary?

Mr. Bevin: One of the great contributions to winning the war is to make the people now engaged in fighting feel that they are going to return to proper conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

Employment Exchange Interviews.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that many persons and employers of persons who are called for interview at Employment Exchanges after registration, whether under the National Service Act or otherwise, are imperfectly informed of the machinery by which they may, if they so desire, apply for deferment or appeal against the form of employment to which they are directed or, in the case of women, appeal against being treated as mobile, he will make a statement summarising these points and cause it to be supplied to those it concerns at the exchanges?

Mr. Bevin: I am sending my hon. Friend a complete set of letters and leaflets issued to women dealt with either under the National Service Acts or the Registration for Employment Order. These give the women concerned all necessary information at every appropriate stage of the procedure. Equally employers are always informed in advance of interview and given the opportunity of making an application for deferment or retention.

Miss Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the distribution of different leaflets, many very intelligent employers and very intelligent workers are quite foggy as to just what steps they can take, and could he not issue one short summary which would have all the heads

in one leaflet, which could be issued at the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid that that would not solve the problem, because there are different stages, and I have had very little difficulty either with intelligent employers or with intelligent workpeople.

Mobile Women Workers.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is permissible to send mobile girls from Scotland to England when they are working locally on No. 1 A Priority Certificate work?

Mr. Bevin: The grant of No. 1 A priority to a firm does not determine the supply or withdrawal of labour, but a firm in this position would in general be engaged on work from which women other than ancillary workers are not withdrawn under the National Service Acts or the Registration for Employment Order. Ancillary workers withdrawn from such firms would be liable, if they were mobile, to be transferred to areas where the shortage of labour is most acute in accordance with my general plans for making the best use of the available supplies of labour.

Mr. Lindsay: As there appears to be some confusion about this, would my right hon. Friend make the position quite clear to these people, if I give him an example from Scotland?

Mr. Mathers: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that at least girls who are directed from Scotland to England and find the conditions at work and in their living arrangements unsatisfactory, will not be punished if they go home?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot agree to that. What I will do is that if, in respect of any girl, from anywhere, not only from Scotland—they are all the same to me, and from wherever they come they are citizens—any case is reported to my Department of unsatisfactory accommodation or not proper conditions of employment, I will undertake to get it looked into immediately, but I cannot agree to allow the law to be ignored and production held up.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the idea of stripping Scotland of all its women, and will


he not leave some of the women in Scotland, because we want these women? [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter; it is a very serious thing, and everybody connected with the business will get to know of it. We are losing the women that we require to carry on the work in Scotland—never mind anything else—and the Minister should not laugh at this serious position.

Mr. Bevin: I hope my smiles are but an appreciation of the hon. Member's point. I cannot agree not to take the women from Scotland equally with women from other parts of the country. If they are short of labour in Scotland perhaps I can arrange to send back some men.

Building Operations.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will in future inform the Ministry of Works and Planning of the exact number of operatives available for any particular building operation, and so allow of a building programme being started strictly in accordance with the number of operatives available to carry it out?

Mr. Bevin: No exact forecast can be made of the numbers of operatives becoming available from time to time from various sources to meet the progressive needs of building operations. Transfers of operatives are made as required in accordance with the relative urgency of the operations.

Mr. Bossom: While I fully appreciate the difficulty of this situation, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be better if he would look into this matter and allow or allot the number of men that will be available for each job so as to enable it to be completed on time rather than allow another job to be started and neither of them to be completed on time?

Mr. Bevin: That is a matter, I suggest, for the Ministry of Works and Planning and the Service Departments which deal with the actual allocation of contracts. My duty is to supply the labour, and I have to try to supply it at such a rate and at such a time as to get the contracts completed to meet strategic requirements.

Mr. Bossom: If I give my right hon. Friend at least one dozen important jobs of this type where they are waiting for labour and have been delayed in consequence,

would he mind giving consideration to this suggestion?

Mr. Bevin: I will consider anything that the hon. Gentleman puts before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

Conscientious Objectors (Appeals).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give figures showing the results to 30th June of appeals made to conscientious objectors' tribunals under Section 5 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1941, by men imprisoned for failing to submit to medical examination; why three divisions of the Appellate Tribunal have each granted recognition to less than half the appellants while the other three divisions have each recognised three-quarters or more; and whether this indicates a geographical distribution of conscientious objection or the need for greater uniformity in dealing with the men concerned?

Mr. Bevin: As the statement giving the statistics desired consists of a Table of figures I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Appellate Tribunal is an independent judicial, authority, and I am not prepared to speculate as to the reasons for the different proportions of appeals allowed.

Following is the statement:


Applications under Section 5 of the N.S. (No. 2) Act, 1941.


Division of the Appellate Tribunal.
No. of applications heard up to 30 June, 1942.
Previous order varied by the Appellate Tribunal.


Southern England No. 1.
151
127


Southern England No. 2.
175
86


Southern England No. 3.
119
93


Northern England
123
59


Wales
8
6


Scotland
96
43



672
414

Calling-up Delays.

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a case was heard at the West London Police Court on 24th instant when a man was charged


with, and acquitted of, being a deserter from military service; that some 12 months had elapsed since the medical examination and acceptance of this unreserved and non-deferred man, but no call up for service had been made upon him; and whether, in view of the increasing need for man-power in the war effort, he will institute inquiry to ascertain why such delays should be now permitted and to arrange a system for the immediate mobilisation of man-power and determination of liability when neither reservation nor deferment exists?

Mr. Bevin: The man in question was called up last April by an enlistment notice duly issued under the National Service Acts. With regard to the other points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend I am having inquiries made and will communicate with him.

Mr. Culverwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of men of military age visited the House of Commons yesterday, and will he take steps to de-reserve those who are so anxious to form a second front?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISED MEN (HOUSING).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider amending the Rent Restrictions Act, 1939, to permit of a member of His Majesty's Forces, who is demobilised during the war, regaining possession of his house in cases where he has let it?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): It would not appear that any amendment of the Rent Restrictions Acts is required, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, and of Section 3 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, under which an owner can obtain from the Court an order for possession of his house for occupation as a residence for himself unless the Court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.

Mr. Culverwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a friend of mine who was mobilised and discharged from the Army was unable to regain possession of his house? If I send him particulars of this case, will he look into it?

Mr. Brown: I should be glad to have the case and look into it, but the Act as I have stated it seems to cover it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

Slaugter-Houses (Inspection).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the efficient inspection of meat in public and other abattoirs results in the elimination of carcases or parts of the same liable to convey to consumers various diseases; and, as such inspection is not possible in areas where abattoirs do not exist, resulting in the marketing of diseased food, what steps are being taken to meet this situation?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not aware of the precise circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. I would point out, however, that notice of intention to slaughter an animal for sale for human consumption is required by the Public Health (Meat) Regulations to be given to the local authority and that under an Order made by my right hon. and Noble Friend the Minister of Food no person may slaughter for human consumption any livestock except in accordance with a licence granted by his Department.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that owing to the lack of the necessary supervision of slaughter-houses diseased meat is unquestionably being placed on the market? Should it not be the policy of the Ministry to provide at the earliest moment public abattoirs?

Mr. Brown: My understanding of the meat and livestock scheme gives the impression that there are opportunities for the inspection of slaughter-houses. I have inquired from my Noble Friend the Minister of Food, who states that in the opinion of his Ministry's area technical advisers meat inspection, generally speaking, is carried out to a greater extent than in peace-time.

Mr. Adams: But is the Minister aware that there are scattered slaughter-houses in all great centres of population? Where public abattoirs do not exist, supervision is very superficial.

Mr. Brown: That is a general statement, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular evidence with which to back it up,


I would like to consider it, as, I am sure, would my Noble Friend the Minister of Food.

Medical Man-Power, Suffolk.

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that after Lieutenant Broadbent's compassionate leave has expired, the town of Eye, Suffolk, and 16 surrounding villages will be without medical attendance; and whether he will take steps to prevent this danger to the public health of this large reception area?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Reply which I gave to his Question on this subject on 23rd July. I am informed that there is another doctor resident in the town and that doctors from neighbouring places also visit the town and surrounding villages.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and I have received a petition from a large number of people in this large rural area, will he reconsider this matter? Is he satisfied that he is getting the right advice from the local medical committees, and, most of all, will he himself give an assurance that if there is an epidemic in this large reception area we shall have increased medical facilities?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer the last part of my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question, which is hypothetical, but, as he knows, the local medical war committee considered this, and I am informed by them that there is one practitioner remaining in Eye—and he has a part-time assistant—and that a number of doctors visit the town from adjoining villages, for example, four doctors from Diss, which is five miles distant; one from Hoxne, which is 3½ miles distant; one from Debenham and one from Stradbrooke. It would appear, therefore, that Eye is reasonably served.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the local medical services are hopelessly inadequate, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if there is an epidemic additional doctors will be available?

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will my right hon. Friend assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a proper court of appeal and that all these things are taken into account?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why not release some of the doctors in internment?

Milk Pasteurisation.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any evidence to prove that cases of tuberculosis notified in recent years were exclusively persons reared on unpasteurised milk; and whether any inquiry on this point is made when tuberculosis is notified?

Mr. E. Brown: In reply to the first part of the Question, no evidence is available. In regard to the second part, I am advised that it would be unusual in medical practice not to make such inquiries in cases of tuberculosis among young children, but that the point becomes less relevant after childhood.

Mr. Leach: How does the right hon. Gentleman know there is so much tuberculosis as that if he has no evidence?

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the infant mortality from certain forms of tuberculosis is higher in Greater London and the county boroughs, where a great part of the milk consumed is pasteurised, than in rural districts where most of the milk consumed is unpasteurised; and is he satisfied that pasteurisation is doing the work claimed for it in the circulars issued by his Department?

Mr. Brown: If as I assume from my hon. Friend's reference to pasteurisation the first part of the Question relates to non-pulmonary tuberculosis, the answer is, "No, Sir"; the increase in child mortality from non-pulmonary tuberculosis appears to be greater in country than in town. The information available therefore casts no doubt on the efficacy of pasteurisation.

Mr. Leach: How does the right hon. Gentleman like this cooked stuff?

Ministry's Report.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Department of Health for Scotland has issued a Report covering the work of that Department to the end of June, 1942; and will he take steps to issue a Report for England and Wales on similar lines?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. A summary report for England and Wales for the


financial year ended 31st March last is in active preparation, and I hope to present it shortly.

Mr. Davies: How comes it about that the Ministry of Health in these matters is so much behind the Scottish Department of Health? What is the reason for the fatigue and paralysis in the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman would be unwise to draw comparisons. Obligations may be the same, but the area is not quite the same. As he knows, there was, first of all, a decision not to publish certain reports, and that was reconsidered. I have taken steps to see that the most recent report shall be produced at once.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that the English are behind the Scots on all questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMP SCHOOLS.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health how many places are now vacant in camp schools?

Mr. E. Brown: At 30th June, 1942, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,488 vacant places in the camp schools.

Mr. Lindsay: Is it not rather extraordinary that in summer months there should be nearly 1,500 vacant places in these camps, which are now no longer places of evacuation but most important experiments in boarding-school education? Could the right hon. Gentleman give some explanation?

Mr. Brown: I have answered the Question on the Paper. I do not think we ought to debate that now.

Mr. Lindsay: It is 18 months since I asked whether this matter could be transferred to the Board of Education, which is really responsible. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when that will be done?

Mr. Brown: Not in answer to this Question.

Mr. R. Morgan: What is the exact number of camp schools in active operation at the present time? Is it the intention

of the Department to increase the number?

Mr. Brown: The number was settled by arrangement with the Camps Corporation before the war, and remains the same.

Mr. McEntee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of all places this 1,500 represents?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice. The House will understand that a number of these camps are in the hands of particular units, secondary schools, and it may be in some cases that there are vacancies owing to the disinclination on the part of local authorities to mix units. That is only one aspect of the matter. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that local education authorities concerned are doing their best to fill the vacancies.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHING TRANSACTIONS (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that persons with handcarts stand outside certain schools waiting for the children to bring articles of clothing from their homes in return for fountain pens, scents, goldfish, books and flashlamps, about which hand bills have already been circulated; whether he will take steps to prevent this, in view of the fact that the transactions are a business and not a voluntary effort, that children may be induced to bring from their homes articles without the knowledge of their parents and that it has a tendency to distract the attention of the pupils from their work at school?

Mr. E. Brown: I have seen the hand bill to which my hon. Friend refers. The contemplated transactions would appear to be made offences by Section 154 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936, which provides that no person engaged in collecting rags, old clothing or similar articles shall sell or deliver, whether gratuitously or not, any article of food or drink to any person, or any article whatsoever, to a person under the age of 14 years.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, therefore, to stop the possibility of a man's best Sunday suit being exchanged for a goldfish?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Act with care, he will see that


responsibility for administration rests on the shoulders of the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Goldie: What happens under the Act if the clothing is not old?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the lack of adequate treatment in hospitals and sanatoria for men discharged from the Services; and what measures he has in hand to remedy this state of affairs?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): There is no lack of adequate hospital treatment for medical or surgical cases; and there is ample accommodation both in the hospitals of my Department and in those of the Emergency Medical Service for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is responsible. The provision of sanatorium treatment for cases of tuberculosis is the responsibility of the local health authorities, and I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 30th June regarding the provision of sanatorium beds and nursing staff.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will now take steps to implement the statement he made on 3rd July, 1941, and make awards for material aggravation of condition retrospective to the date at which the aggravation can be proved to exist instead of merely to the date of his announcement?

Sir W. Womersley: All the previously rejected cases brought to the notice of my Department have been reviewed and pension where admissible has been awarded, in accordance with the usual practice, from the pay day nearest to the date on which the announcement was made. I gave no undertaking to depart from this well-established practice, and I see no sufficient reason for doing so.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister recollect that when this new arrangement was made, he promised that the effect of it would be retrospective, but that the practice is to make it retrospective only from the date of his announcement? Is he aware that the arrangement was looked

upon as a belated piece of justice, and why does it not go back to the time when the aggravation can be proved?

Sir W. Womersley: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the whole position. I made it quite clear that claims would be taken retrospectively, but that the payments would start from the date of my announcement.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is yet in a position to reply to that part of the communication sent to the Admiralty on 2nd June and referred by the Admiralty to his Department concerning the disability, etc., of Chief Engine Room Artificer Alfred Hazelhurst?

Sir W. Womersley: Inquiries are still proceeding in this difficult case and on their conclusion I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Sir R. Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the value of medical examinations in cases of this kind, when this man was recalled to the Navy he was passed as Ar, in Cairo he was sent home with rheumatism, and on arrival in England it was Paget's disease? Why are there these differences of medical opinion?

Sir W. Womersley: I think we had better wait until I get the full report and then discuss the matter.

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for pensions he has received from men of the Fighting Forces suffering from gastric trouble; and in how many cases pensions have been granted?

Sir W. Womersley: The cases of all members discharged from the Forces as invadids are considered by my Department without any application from the member concerned. Up to the end of last month pension had been awarded for disabilities in the gastro-intestinal group in slightly over 10,000 cases.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that many Service men's wives are finding difficulty in paying doctors' bills, even for a sum of less than £2, the present Service grants being only obtainable for bills exceeding this amount; and whether he will consider lowering the limit to cover such bills in suitable cases;
(2) whether he is aware that the present War Service grant, limited to £7 10s. for an adult funeral, is insufficient to cover at present charges the cost of a funeral, even the Poor Law cost for, internment in a public grave being £9 10s.; and will he consider revising this regulation?

Sir W. Womersley: Both these Questions relate to the emergency grants for which provision is made in Command 6318. As indicated in paragraph 7 of that Paper, these grants were not designed necessarily to meet the whole costs of illness or death, but were intended to provide a substantial contribution towards the heavier expenses. I see no ground for any change in the matter.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that the present rates of separation allowance for Service peoples' wives are such that the payment even of a charge of 30s. for a doctor's bill is very often beyond their means, and is it reasonable not to give help in such cases where need is proved? Further, cannot the right hon. Gentleman reduce the exorbitant charge of £9 10s. for a pauper's funeral?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID VICTIMS, WESTON- SUPER-MARE (FUNERAL CHARGES).

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, after the bombing of Weston-super-Mare, undertakers touted distressed relatives who had been called to the town to identify victims, secured orders for the provision of coffins, etc., and subsequently submitted to those relatives exorbitant bills for the work; and, as these prices are greatly in excess of those allowed by his Department, will he take the necessary steps to prevent any future exploitation of dependants of air-raid victims in this manner?

Sir W. Womersley: My inquiries have not disclosed any foundation for the allegation in the first part of the Question, and I have no power to intervene between undertakers and relatives who elect to arrange private burials instead of taking advantage of the provision made by local health authorities.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that distressed people were called from South Wales to go to Weston-super-Mare to identify their relatives, and that in the particular case referred to in the Question, the son identified his father and mother who had been killed in the blitz, and was touted by undertakers while in that distressed condition at the mortuary, and that ultimately a bill for £50 was sent to him? Why was there not some civil authority there to advise these people of their rights?

Sir W. Womersley: I have taken a great deal of trouble over this. I have had full inquiries made, and I can assure the hon. Member that he has been misinformed.

Mr. Edwards: Has not the Minister got documents in his Department, and has he not sent an acknowledgment that he has received those documents, and do they not disclose that over £50 was charged for putting two killed people into two coffins and sending them to South Wales?

Sir W. Womersley: The information which I received, I repeat, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that there is no truth whatever in the hon. Member's allegations that touting took place. As to the price of the coffins, it was not £50; it was £20 odd—

Mr. Edwards: £28 each.

Sir W. Womersley: —and if one reads the description of the coffins, a matter which was arranged between the relatives and the undertakers, they were the sort of coffins one would expect Hitler to have.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the course of the inquiries made in connection with this Question, he found any proof that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) had taken any steps before putting down this Question, which contains a very sweeping slander, to verify the facts contained in the Question?

Sir W. Womersley: I am absolutely satisfied that the hon. Member for Caerphilly did not make any inquiry.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Edwards: Am I entitled to make a personal explanation on this matter, as an allegation of slander has been made?

Mr. Speaker: If the Hon. Member wishes to make a statement, he must do so after Questions.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: On a point of Order—

Mr. Garro Jones: There are some points even more important than constituency points, strangely enough. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for a Minister to say, in answer to a Question, that a Member has not made any inquiries into the subject of the Question he has put down?

Sir W. Womersley: Further to that point of Order. The hon. Member will recollect that I said it was evident he had not made inquiries.

Mr. Edwards: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Collindridge: Is the Minister aware that his reply to this Question is calculated to allow this thing to go on?

Mr. Edwards: It will encourage it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

Communist Party.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether the announcement that the Indian Communist Party is now legally recognised is accompanied by the release of all Communist prisoners; and whether that party will now be able to issue literature, including periodicals and newspapers?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Government of India and provincial governments have already released a number of individuals associated with the Communist Party of India who desire to assist the war effort, and will continue to deal with each case on its merits, including those of members of the Communist Party who, as such, have been convicted by the criminal courts of offences not involving violence. They have removed the ban on the Party's weekly and monthly publications "The National Front" and "The New Age."

Mr. Sorensen: Is there any truth in the rumour that the "Daily Worker" is to be published in India?

Mr. Amery: I have no information on that.

Political Situation.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for India what are the present intentions of His Majesty's Government as regard the political situation in India?

Mr. Amery: The Congress Party Working Committee has adopted, subject to ratification by the All-India Committee, a resolution demanding the immediate withdrawal of British rule from India and threatening a mass movement if the demand is not conceded. The purpose of His Majesty's Government with regard to the constitutional future of India was made clear in the draft Declaration which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal was authorised to offer on behalf of His Majesty's Government. It proved impossible to secure the support of the principal elements of India's national life for the specific proposals in that Declaration, and the draft was accordingly withdrawn. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government stand firmly by the broad intention of their offer.
The present demand of Congress completely ignores this far-reaching offer and would, if conceded, bring about a complete and abrupt dislocation of the vast and complicated machinery of government in India. This at a time when in Russia, China, Libya and other theatres of war the situation calls for the undivided energy, co-operation and concentration of the resources of all the Allied powers. No greater disservice to the cause for which the United Nations are fighting can be imagined, and men of good-will everywhere must refuse to envisage such a catastrophic development in one of the most vital theatres of war.
His Majesty's Government, while reiterating their resolve to give the fullest opportunity for the attainment by India of complete self-government, cannot but solemnly warn all those who stand behind the policy adumbrated by the Working Committee of Congress that the Government of India will not flinch from their duty to take every possible step to meet the situation. The United Nations have bent themselves to the task of fighting the menace which overhangs freedom and civilisation. In this crisis and in the future after the war, India has a great part to


play, and it is the earnest hope of His Majesty's Government that the Indian people will lend no countenance to a movement fraught with such disastrous consequences but will, on the contrary, throw their all into the struggle against the common enemies of mankind.

Mr. Ammon: While recognising the difficult position the right hon. Gentleman is in, would it not be better if, instead of conveying a half threat, and in spite of perhaps a little loss of face, the Government were to make some deliberate and open attempt to come to further discussions with India?

Mr. Amery: We have done all in our power.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that the Government's proposals were capable of modification and discussable, may I ask whether, in the present critical situation, it would not be better for the Government to seek a further approach in order that negotiations should be resumed, and does not the right hon. Gentleman also appreciate that we have got quite sufficient on our plate without entering into a violent conflict with the people of India?

Mr. Amery: I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal has already informed the House of the not inconsiderable amount of discussion which has taken place.

Sir H. Williams: Does not the Secretary of State think that the Working Committee would be exceedingly disappointed if the British Army were withdrawn, because there would be no one left to protect them against the real fighting peoples of India?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that under no circumstances will Mr. Gandhi be arrested and given that additional opportunity of self-advertisement?

Mr. Driberg: With a view to ending the deadlock in India, would it not be possible to invite the United Nations to arbitrate?

Miss Rathbone: Does the reply mean that however badly the Congress Party may behave during the war and impede the war effort, all the Cripps' proposals will still be open to them with the dominant positions which they give to India?

Mr. Amery: The broad intentions of the Government remain the same, irrespective of the immediate conduct of the Congress Party.

British Commercial Post-War Interests.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give an assurance that in any post-war arrangement for the future government of India adequate arrangements will be made for the guarantee of British commercial interests?

Mr. Amery: His Majesty's Government made it clear in connection with the recent offer that a guarantee of special protection for British commercial interests in India would not be a condition for the acceptance of whatever Constitution Indians might evolve after the war, and that any such provisions would more appropriately be a matter for negotiation with the future Government of India.

Sir A. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend remember that we have hundreds of millions of British capital invested in India?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

Regional Commissioners (Staff).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of persons employed by the Regional Commissioners in England and Wales?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The total staff employed by Regional Commissioners in England and Wales on 1st July, 1942, was 3,765. This figure includes Deputy-Regional Commissioners and 221 part-time officers, 120 of whom are unpaid.

Sir H. Williams: Does the Home Secretary realise that some people are becoming perturbed about the rapid growth of the number of these people, who, after all, are engaged only in subordinate services?

Mr. Morrison: My impression is that the number has been reduced in recent months. In fact, I am surprised, in view of the magnitude and responsibility of the work of the regional offices, that the figure is as low as it is.

Major Petherick: Without casting any aspersions on the present occupants of the posts and their staff, may I ask whether the system of Regional Commissioners is justifying itself?

Mr. Morrison: Absolutely.

London Tube Shelters.

Mr. Windsor: asked the Home Secretary the considerations that led to the decision to close certain London tube stations as air-raid shelters as from 3rd August?

Mr. H. Morrison: The majority of the London tube station shelters are very sparsely occupied, and the use that is being made of them does not justify the labour and expense involved in maintaining all of them as shelters. The decision temporarily to close certain of the shelters was taken in the interests of economy and simplification of management. Arrangements have been made to reopen at very short notice the shelters scheduled for closing, should circumstances so require, and the choice of stations which are to remain open has been so made as to provide in each local authority's area a nucleus tube shelter organisation which can quickly be extended to the other stations in that area.

Exit Permits, Northern Ireland.

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether, owing to serious complaints of delay in the issue of permits, he will give instructions to passport officials to have permits in the hands of travellers to Northern Ireland at least one week before the date of departure?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not aware that there is any delay in the issue of exit permits to persons who qualify for permits to enable them to travel to Northern Ireland and who follow the advice given to apply for exit permits at least 14 days before the date on which they wish to travel. If, however, my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which delay has occurred I shall be glad to look into them.

Dr. Little: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have received such complaints. Will he not issue the permits at least a week in advance to enable travellers to make their bookings for the journey?

Northern Ireland and Eire (Detention Powers).

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether, in the interests of public security he will issue instructions that those who cross the border from neutral Eire into Northern Ireland and are found to be hostile to Britain, shall be immediately interned?

Mr. H. Morrison: The powers conferred on me by Defence Regulation 18B are exerciseable in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom and will be used whenever I have reasonable cause to believe that the detention is necessary of any person whose activities or associations bring him within the terms of that Regulation.

Static Water Tanks (Safety Precautions).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any record of fatalities through the drowning of children who have fallen into National Fire Service water tanks; what representations from local authorities he has received on the matter; and what fresh steps have been taken to minimise the number of these accidents?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret to say that 36 children have lost their lives through drowning in these tanks and basins. Representations have been received from local authorities in some of these cases and, naturally, comments have been made by Coroners when conducting inquests; but there has been an increasing recognition of the importance to the nation of these installations and of the magnitude, I might say impossibility, of the task of providing and maintaining at them all fences or other devices which would be proof against adventurous children and not impede the work of the Fire Service. When the matter was last raised in the House by the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons), I gave particulars of the various precautions which were being taken, and I am confident that all possible care will be taken to provide and maintain fencing or other means of preventing access where there is risk of children falling into the water. I have also asked chief constables to ensure that special attention is paid to the tanks by their Forces and that children are warned against the danger which they present.

Mr. Sorensen: May we have an assurance that, whenever a strong and reasonable representation is made by local authorities in regard to the fencing of these tanks, my right hon. Friend will see that steps are taken to protect them?

Mr. Morrison: I will give any such representations sympathetic consideration. The problem is not to do something which impedes access to the water by the Fire Service. But I am anxious to do everything I can.

Mr. Ammon: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting nets over these things?

Mr. Morrison: I thought of that idea, and it is being looked into. It might involve delay in access to the water, but I will consider it.

Cycle Lights.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether any measures can be taken to increase the amount of light allowed to pedal bicycles during the coming winter months?

Mr. H. Morrison: This matter has been under examination. A mask which gives more satisfactory results has been designed, but there are some questions of labour and material to be settled before production can begin.

Commander King-Hall: May we have an assurance that a decision will be reached in ample time? If the right hon. Gentleman is in any doubt as to the urgent nature of this, will he accompany me on a tandem on a tour round London and see for himself the troubles and difficulties that bicyclists are in?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that I ought to run the risk of being caught by the police for dangerous driving, but the decision is all right. The mask has actually met with the approval of the National Union of Cyclists and the Cyclists' Touring Club. The problem is one of production. I will do anything I can.

Fireman's Discharge, Silvertown.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary why Fireman W. J. Mercer, registered No. 146, stationed at Silvertown, West Ham, was discharged on medical grounds without any compensation?

Mr. H. Morrison: This fireman was discharged on account of sickness, after the

maximum period of sick leave on full pay to which he was entitled. This was not a case of injury and there is no provision for compensation.

Mr. Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the troubles this man was subject to was due to the fact that he slept in a bed in which another fireman had slept who was suffering from a disease which I cannot pronounce?

Mr. Morrison: My information is that the fireman's illness, for which I am sorry, had no connection with his work in the Fire Service. If my hon. Friend has evidence to the contrary, I shall be glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE FEDERATION.

Mr. William Brown: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the discontent amongst police officers at the delays experienced in the operations of the Police Federation and at its failure to secure prompt redress of their grievances; and whether he will withdraw the prohibition against police officers having a properly constituted association of their own?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir; I am not aware that there is any responsible body of opinion, either in the police service or elsewhere, which would favour the establishment of some other representative organisation in place of the Police Federation as constituted by the Police Act, 1919.

Mr. Brown: Will the Home Secretary be good enough to inform the Police Federation that they can speak their minds freely on this subject without fear of victimisation, and, if they express themselves in the sense of this question, will he be prepared to give them freedom?

Oral Answers to Questions — THEFTS OF BICYCLES.

Sir William Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the large and increasing number of bicycles which have recently been stolen; what action the Government propose to take in the matter; and, in particular, whether they have considered applying to pedal bicycles the same provisions as now apply to motor bicycles, which make it an offence for any motor


bicycle to be taken and driven away with out the owner's consent?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie).

Sir W. Davison: Has the Home Secretary's attention been drawn to a recent statement made by the Secretary of the Cyclists' Touring Club in which he pointed out that in a small town of some 27,000 inhabitants no fewer than 550 bicycles have been stolen? In Liverpool and Manchester the figure runs into five figures. As so many munition workers depend on bicycles for getting to work, is it not urgent that something should be done in the matter?

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry about it, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Home Office and the police will do all they can. The fundamental difficulty about bicycles is that they are not as readily identifiable as motor vehicles.

Mr. Goldie: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the answer he gave me yesterday, may I ask whether it is seriously suggested that men or women cannot recognise their own bicycles in a police station? Is he aware that in the North of England lorries are going round and removing padlocked bicycles, and does he not think it is about time something was done to stop this?

Mr. Morrison: I think it is desirable to padlock bicycles, but it is no good putting to me whether a person can recognise his bicycle in a police station. I cannot collect all the bicycles in a town, and then get people to come to the police station to identify them. The problem is to get the right bicycle and the right person.

Sir W. Davison: As there was a great reduction in the number of thefts of motor bicycles by the passing of Section 28 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, should not this provision be made also to apply to pedal bicycles?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALL POOLS.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take action for the suppression of football pools in wartime, in view of the need for saving paper,

utilising man- and woman-power on the most useful lines, and promoting war savings?

Mr. H. Morrison: The amount of business transacted by the football pool companies has greatly decreased since the outbreak of war. For example, the amount paid into the pools by the public in the form of postal orders was in the 1941–42 season 80 per cent. less than in 1938–39. On the information before me I hardly think there are any sufficient grounds to justify singling out this particular form of amusement for repressive measures.

Captain Plugge: Would not the suppression of football pools result in a great loss of revenue to the Post Office and, therefore, to the Exchequer, and ought not everything be done to encourage a hobby which occupies people at home, saving transport and other wasteful expenditure?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend is trying morally to draw me in the opposite direction; I think I had better not get there either.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXI-CAB DRIVERS, LONDON (ILLEGAL PRACTICES).

Major Stourton: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the practice established by certain London taximeter-cab drivers who ply for hire in the early hours of the morning between railway termini and select their own fares while illegally declining to accept those who attempt to engage their vehicles; that the object of the drivers is to fill their cabs with inexperienced other ranks of His Majesty's Forces, convey them to other London stations where each is illegally charged at an extortionate rate and then return with others who are similarly overcharged; and whether he will take immediate steps to put an end to this practice?

Mr. H. Morrison: I fully agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that active measures must be taken to put a stop to such abuses as those to which he has called attention. I understand that a number of cases where cabmen have refused to be hired or have charged more than the proper fare have recently been detected and dealt with by the police; and I will consult with the Commissioner


of Police and with those who are responsible for the railway police as to what more can be done.

Major Stourton: Can the Home Secretary state how many police prosecutions there have been?

Mr. Morrison: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST END CINEMAS (PRICES).

Mr. Mack: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the exorbitant prices being charged, especially during week-ends, by many West End cinemas far beyond the pocket of men and women in the services; and if he will either fix maximum prices for cinema seats or close those cinemas where this profiteering goes on?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have caused inquiries to be made and am informed that the prices charged by West End cinemas have been increased only to the extent necessary to meet the recent increase in Entertainments Tax; and that the prices are the same at week-ends as on other days, except that the special reductions for matinees do not operate for so long a period on Saturdays. I have no power to take action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mack: Does not my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of London is extensive and peculiar, feel that his reputation as a fearless administrator would be enhanced by making closer inquiries into these prices? He would find that they are definitely far beyond the capacity of ordinary citizens to pay and are, causing severe comment in all parts of London and are therefore anti-social.

Mr. Cluse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that cinema companies have a method of re-shuffling their seats so that, if you desire to enter one of these places, you have to pay a price which is increased much more than the new tax made necessary?

Mr. Morrison: I came across that in one of my former experiences, and the London County Council dealt with the problem. With regard to the first question, I shall be glad to receive any evidence, if there is evidence, contrary to the statement I have made, but I do not know what I

can do about it, because I have no legal power to intervene.

Mr. Mack: If I send my right hon. Friend information, will he pass it on to some Department which may be able to act in the interests of the community, who are being mulcted in this way?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider any information that my hon. Friend may send.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MANUFACTURE AND RE SEARCH COMPANY, LIMITED.

Major Petherick: asked the Home Secretary whether he will exercise his powers under the Defence of the Realm Act to procure the disclosure of the names of the beneficial owners of the shares held in the names of nominees in the British Manufacture and Research Company, Limited?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that inquiries in the direction suggested have already been instituted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN ATROCITIES (RETRIBU TION WARNINGS).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase in the murder of hostages by the Germans and the recent threatened further extension of this practice in violation of international law, immediate steps will be taken, in consultation with the United States of America, to inform the Germans that if any further hostages are murdered because of acts with which they have had no direct connection instant reprisals will be taken by the destruction of German cities and towns?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on 1st July, His Majesty's Government are endeavouring by every means at their disposal to bring -home to the German people their ever-increasing responsibility for such barbarous actions committed in their name. The Germans receive salutary reminders of this responsibility whenever the Royal Air Force visits their cities and towns, but as I stated in reply to my


hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs on 18th June, our policy is to direct our bombing effort against Germany to the most effective points.

Sir W. Davison: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recent threat by the German Chief of Police in Paris that the male members of any family suspected of sabotage will at once be arrested and put to death? Is it not desirable, as force is the only thing that appeals to Germans, to make an announcement such as I have indicated that a German village or town will be destroyed?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member put that point in a previous Question, and it was explained that we want to use our Air Force in the most effective way, and that to go round seeking out small villages for destruction is not the way to operate the Air Force.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT DEVELOP MENT (RESPONSIBILITY).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible to the House for the proper development of air transport for war purposes?

Mr. Attlee: The Secretary of State for Air under the War Cabinet is responsible. The design, development and production of transport aircraft, to the specifications and requirements of the Secretary of State for Air, are, however, the responsibility of the Minister of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the record of the Air Ministry in the sphere of air transport, whether civil or military, is not an inspiring one, and will he, in view of the growing importance of this subject, ask the War Cabinet to apply some stimulus to that body on the lines of developments in the United States?

Mr. Attlee: I will consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND-BORNE TORPEDO-CARRYING AIRCRAFT.

Captain Plugge: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now satisfied with the use and number of land-borne torpedo-carrying aeroplanes, especially in home waters?

Mr. Attlee: I would hesitate to express complete satisfaction with the scale of our equipment or the use we make of it in any branch of the Fighting Services, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that no effort is being spared to develop the production of these aircraft and to improve their tactical employment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to have more if that could be achieved without detriment to other interests.

Captain Plugge: Are the land-borne torpedo-carrying planes operated by the Fleet Air Arm, and are they the property of the Fleet Air Arm, or are they under the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Attlee: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Captain Plugge: When will the Fleet Air Arm be granted the same freedom of action and of expansion as the Royal Naval Air Service enjoyed during the last war?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Are the torpedoes carried by these planes provided, looked after and tested by Admiralty personnel?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDUCT OF THE WAR.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister what further powers he proposes to ask the House to grant him in relation to the conduct of the war?

Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister desires me to say that he has no new proposals to submit to the House on this subject.

Mr. Dugdale: Does this mean that the Prime Minister repudiates the statement of the Chairman of the Conservative Club at Manchester on Friday and that, unlike his colleague, he believes that this country, as a democracy, can wage war successfully, and that under no circumstances—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY CO-OPERATION COMMAND.

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider


transferring both the command and the effective operational control of Army Cooperation Command to the Army?

Mr. Attlee: The Army already exercises effective operational control over the squadrons in Army Co-operation Command. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not consider that any change in the present system of command is necessary.

Major Taylor: Is it not a fact that I received a reply to a Question that Army Co-operation Command is under the command of an Air Force officer?

Mr. Attlee: That is quite true. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me a Question, and I gave the reply referred to.

Major Taylor: How can the effective operational control of the Army Cooperation Command be in the hands of the Army if it is commanded by an Air Force officer?

Mr. Attlee: It is under his operational control.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (COMMANDER-IN- CHIEF).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to appoint a Commander-in-Chief for the Middle East?

Mr. Attlee: If any changes of this character were deemed desirable they would no doubt be announced in due course.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister recently stated that General Auchinleck was giving his undivided attention to the 8th Army? How can he do that and be Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East as well?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

Dispossessed Farmers.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of cases of dispossession of farmers from their farms, as a result of action by the war agricultural committees, that have taken place from September, 1939, to 30th June, 1942; and whether he can now make a

further statement regarding the future policy of the Government in this matter?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The tenancies of 1,881 farmers in England and Wales have been terminated by notice under Defence Regulation 62. Executive committees have also taken possession of land under Regulation 51 in 4,373 cases, but it is not possible to state how many of these involve dispossession of farmers. The Government's policy has been based on intervention only when the existing occupier is unwilling or unable to farm the land in the proper manner at a time of national urgency which demands the maximum possible production. No basic change in such policy is contemplated.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is one thing to dispossess a farmer and another thing to find a better man to do the job and that it is getting more and more difficult to get good men?

Mr. Hudson: My own personal experience in travelling round the country is that where we have dispossessed farmers there has been a great increase in production on the farms concerned.

Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will come along with me next week?

Executive Committee Officers (Home Guard Duties).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order that whole-time officers in the war agricultural committees, working seven days a week in the summer season, may be granted exemption from Home Guard duties during this season, he will confer with the Secretary of State for War in order to obtain his co-operation in this matter, in view of the importance this year of the maximum home production of food,

Mr. Hudson: Under existing arrangements, commanders of Home Guard units may, at their discretion, reduce the hours of duty and training where men work long hours, and it is open to whole-time officers of county war agricultural executive committees, like other members of the Home Guard, to apply to their individual commanders for relief when essential civilian work renders this necessary.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend bring home to the proper authorities the vital necessity of Home Guards who will be engaged in harvesting having as much exemption as possible in view of the acute position of the shortage of labour?

Fruit Tree Prices.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the confidential circulars, copies of which have been sent to him, issued by an organisation styled the Horticultural Trades Association, which controls the main supplies of fruit trees for all the growers, nurserymen and smallholders, advising the trade to raise the 1942–43 prices for apple, plum and other fruit trees by increases varying from 20 to 80 per cent. and, as this affects the cost of production, what steps he is taking to control the price of trees for the protection of the growers?

Mr. Hudson: I have examined the circulars, and I propose to invite representatives of the Horticultural Trades Association to discuss prices of fruit trees with my Department.

Mr. Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend when meeting the Association tell them in equally strong terms, as they have strongly advised their members to put up prices, that the shortage and scarcity of supplies are not justifiable reasons for increasing costs of production in wartime?

Mr. Hudson: We had better wait and see what they have to say.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter very thoroughly, as I am not sure that it is quite right?

Tuberculous Cows (Marketing).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that it is common for cows which react to tests for tuberculosis to be sent to market and sold as healthy cows, thereby spreading the disease; and whether prompt steps will be taken to prevent this practice?

Mr. Hudson: The sale of cows reacting to the tuberculin test is not, on that account, restricted. In view of the very much larger number of untested cattle which, if tested, would react, no such restriction would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that many cows seriously affected with tuberculosis are permitted to be put on the market and disposed of as healthy cows? Is that satisfactory?

Mr. Hudson: That is merely repeating the Question on the Paper which I have answered.

Pullet Prices.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take to relieve the difficulties of poultry farmers who have, with official encouragement, reared large numbers of pullets in order to sell them to domestic poultry keepers who, owing to the reduction of poultry food coupons, now will not want them; whether the price of 20s. each was fixed as a reasonable one for such birds; and is he aware that under the controlled price they will realise only about 5s. 4d. for a 4-lb. bird if sold as spring chickens?

Mr. Hudson: The poultry farmers to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers were breeders who agreed in return for an additional ration of feeding-stuffs to breed pullets primarily for sale to domestic poultry keepers. If the orders they have been able to secure from that quarter do not come up to their expectations they are entitled to sell their birds in the open market. The prices suggested by the industry's representatives and agreed as reasonable by the Ministry varied from 10s. for an eight-week old bird to 21s. for a 20-week old bird. The response to the appeal to breeders fell far below the demand for pullets then anticipated by the Domestic Poultry Keepers' Council, and I have no reason to suppose that pullets not sold to domestic poultry keepers will not readily be absorbed by the industry generally at prices above those ruling for table poultry.

Rye (Ploughing Grant).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will limit or pro hibit the payment of the £2 subsidy on land devoted to the cultivation of rye unless an undertaking is given that it will not be supplied for the manufacture of intoxicating beverages?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. The payment of the £2 per acre ploughing grant under the Agricultural Development Acts, 1939 and 1940, is not conditional on the use made of the crop grown on the land.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister adhere to his expressed opinion that rye used for making beer is being used for equally good purposes as compared with rye used for bread, and what is the scientific basis for that opinion?

Mr. Hudson: I should have thought that common sense was the basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Bowles: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the widow of a police constable with less than five years' police service who is killed on active service cannot be awarded a pension under the Police Pensions Act, 1921; and whether he will take steps to remove this anomaly by adopting the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Police Widows' Pensions?

Mr. H. Morrison: As the consultations with representatives of the police authorities and the police service on the main issues raised by the report of this committee are not yet completed, it is not possible at this stage to deal with recommendations for particular amendments of the existing law, but the point to which my hon. Friend refers has been noted and will not be overlooked.

Miss Rathbone: As the report in question was issued last November and nothing has been done with a number of urgent recommendations which it made, will my right hon. Friend try to see that something is done about it?

Mr. Morrison: It is no good my hon. Friend blaming me in that tone of voice. The difficulty is that the police authorities and the Police Federation have not yet made up their minds about it.

Miss Rathbone: Have the unfortunate widows to wait until they have made up their minds?

Mr. Morrison: It is essential that they should make up their minds before I can consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUGUST BANK HOLIDAY PERIOD (PASSENGER TRAINS).

Mr. Speaker: Question 81, in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel), has not been reached, and

perhaps the House will allow the Minister to make a reply to it as it is important that it should be made before Bank Holiday.

Following is the Question:
81. Mr. FRANKEL—To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what instructions have been given to the railway companies respecting the provision of passenger services during the August Bank Holiday period?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for allowing me to make this statement.
My Ministry have received reports from various parts of the country that more people are hoping to travel at August Bank Holiday week-end than the railways will be able to carry. I desire therefore to make it plain that my noble Friend has told the railway companies that during the Bank Holiday period from 31st July to 4th August inclusive, they must not run more passenger trains on any given weekday than the maximum number run on any weekday in July of this year. On Sunday, 2nd August, they may run no more passenger trains than the maximum run on an ordinary Sunday in July. In the case of long-distance trains which are normally run in parts, each part will count as a train. Arrangements have been made with the Service Departments by which leave has been so adjusted that only a very small number of troops will travel on leave during the Bank Holiday period. The staff of Government Departments have been told that they are expected not to make long distance journeys except when that is necessary on official business, and the use of their free or reduced price travel passes will not be allowed. The general public should realise that the total number of trains available will be substantially less than it was in the corresponding period last year. I am grateful for this opportunity of making it plain to, those who are intending to travel, and particularly to those who may be planning to make long-distance journeys, that if they disregard this warning, they will run the risk of finding themselves stranded.

Mr. Mander: Does that mean that railway companies must not run duplicate trains as they are doing at the present time?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In the ordinary practice of the railway companies there are duplicate trains, but, as I have said, the total number of trains, including duplicates, must not be greater than that of any corresponding day in July, either week-day or Sunday, as the case may be. I said in my answer that in the case of long distance trains which normally run in parts each part will count as a train.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will my hon. Friend exercise the same kind of control over the private motor-coach companies, who seem to have supplies of petrol left over from other jobs and can accept private hire jobs to distant places for groups of persons contrary to the spirit of the explanation which my hon. Friend has just given?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If it is a question of a remainder of the basic ration of petrol, I am not sure whether action would be possible, but my hon. Friend may be sure that the same principle will be applied to road transport as has been applied to railway transport.

Mrs. Tate: In view of the urgent necessity of economising in coal, will my hon. Friend consider extending this order, not confining it only to the Bank Holiday period?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly this arrangement will continue; and, indeed, at an early date I expect that the total number of trains will be further cut.

Mr. Gallacher: Could not the Minister reconsider this question and make arrangements to ensure that masses of workers who have to live all the year in crowded areas get facilities to go, for a short while at any rate, to the coast or to the country for the relaxation the necessity for which Members of this House do not seem to appreciate, because they have the best of it all the time?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My Ministry have great sympathy with the point, of view put by my hon. Friend, and it was for that reason that certain short-distance trains were allowed in Lancashire last month, although criticism was made of that policy; but my hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree that not one train, short-distance or long-distance, ought to be allowed if that means holding up war traffic, whether it be for troops, guns, tanks or raw materials.

Major Petherick: Will the hon. Gentle man point out to the public the un desirability of large masses of people coming to London, as was the case yesterday, in order to ask for the removal of the ban on the "Daily Worker" and so causing a lot of congestion on the railways?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that question ought to be addressed to another Department, but I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Member aware that criticism on account of the trains being run in Lancashire largely arises from the fact that we had just as bold an announcement previous to the last holidays as we have had to-day and that in spite of saying one thing you did another?

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect to my hon. Friend we did not do another thing. The trains were not run at the holiday period, and it was all short-distance travel. By allowing those trains we did not in the slightest degree impede the war effort. We told the railway companies that no trains must be run if it would impede any war traffic of any kind. If we had not allowed the trains we should, in that industrial area, have made it certain that many workers and business people who had to travel on war business would have missed their trains and the war effort would have been impeded.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman's Department be good enough to send a representative to Victoria Station, Manchester, on some Friday or Saturday to see what the consequences would be of preventing the Lancashire people going to Blackpool?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire what percentage of Members of Parliament are spending their holidays entirely in their town houses?

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Captain Plugge: On a point of Order. On the Order Paper to-day 15 Ministers have been asked Questions, but only six have been given an opportunity to reply. Cannot something be done to have the


long continuous series of Questions to each individual Minister broken up so that each Minister can reply to some of his Questions in the early part of Question hour?

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. and gallant Member referring to the time taken up by Private Business?

Captain Plugge: I am referring to a similar point of Order to the one I raised yesterday with regard to the rotation in which Questions are put on the Order Paper, which results in two-thirds of the Ministers being unable to reply to their Questions as they are clustered all together at the beginning and the end of the Order Paper. Could not these alternate more frequently throughout the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be better if the Ministers made their replies a little shorter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the next Sitting Days?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Business for the next series of Sitting Days will be as follows:

First Sitting Day—We shall ask the House to pass the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Bill [Lords] through all its stages on grounds of urgency. Afterwards a Debate on Colonial Affairs will take place on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Second Sitting Day—Motion to fix the date of resumption after the Summer Recess. Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on the Eleventh Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure on the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Third Sitting Day—The House will adjourn for the Recess.

During these Sittings, if there is time, we hope to make progress with the Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill [Lords].

Mr. Greenwood: Will the Leader of the House say whether it is the intention of

the Government before the House rises to make a statement on the war situation?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not the present intention of the Government to make any further statement. What may develop during the course of next week it is impossible to say.

Mr. Greenwood: May I put this further point? When the House rises for the Recess it will rise for some quite considerable time. It is some weeks now since we had a statement on the war situation, and in view of the general gravity of the situation will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that there are large numbers of Members in all parties in this House who, while not perhaps wishing for an organised Debate, would like to hear a statement from the Government as to the war situation now?

Sir S. Cripps: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and his view is that he could not make any useful statement at the present time.

Mr. Greenwood: May I then put the question to my right hon. and learned Friend again on the next Sitting Day?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Arising out of the statement which the Leader of the House has just made, I would ask the Government, and indeed I would ask the House, if there is no statement upon the war particularly, and indeed in any case, whether it is desirable that the House should adjourn for more than a month at a vital time like this? I ask whether the Government will not, whether the House will not, decide that it is right and wise that the House should return, for at least a day, a fortnight after we adjourn so that there can be some consideration of the war situation?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible for the House to use any procedure to reject this report, in view of the fact that we are getting no statement on the war and in view of the fact that there should be no Recess at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "What report?"] The report of the programme of Business.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House was giving the agenda of Business for the next series of Sittings.

Sir S. Cripps: In reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), he will be aware that there is already a provision by which the House can be recalled if there is any necessity for that step, and he can rest assured that if it is considered necessary to do so either to make a statement to the House, or for any other reason, the House will be recalled, but as at present advised the Government do not propose to make any statement before the Adjournment.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Of course, we all know the procedure to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, and I have no doubt that if the situation were sufficiently serious, the Government would act under it, but I would suggest that it is not right for the House itself to decide to depart and not to meet for more than a month at a critical stage of the war. I think it is for the House itself and not for the Government to decide whether it is right that it should meet.

Mr. Horabin: I wish to raise the question of a war Debate from a rather different angle. I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government are prepared to grant us a Secret Session before we do adjourn, in view of the gravity of the situation. Some of us have urgent matters to bring before the House which cannot be discussed in public in the interests of the country; and, further than that, we should like to have a view of what the Government's military intentions are before we adjourn.

Sir S. Cripps: I explained to the House last week, I think in answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), that one thing is quite certain, and that is that whatever the military intentions of the Government may be, the Government would be unable to state those intentions even in Secret Session.

Mr. Gallacher: Will they be able to say that they have any intentions?

Sir S. Cripps: I can tell the hon. Member now that we have intentions.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a request has been made officially by the Leader of the Labour party to the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister should make a statement on the war situation—not

necessarily a statement leading to a Debate—and can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why a request of that kind, made in the normal way, through the usual channels, is ignored by the Government?

Sir S. Cripps: It has not been ignored by the Government. As I told the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has considered the question very carefully, and he has come to the conclusion that, at the present time, he could not make a statement which would be of any value to the House and he does not think that it would be wise to make a statement.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The Leader of the House has informed us that the Government are prepared to recall the House in case of grave national emergency. I wish, and I think other hon. Members also wish, to have some sort of information on what, in the opinion of the Government, constitutes a grave national emergency, because the opinion of the Government might, in certain circumstances, be diametrically opposed to the opinion of the vast majority in the House and the country outside. If I may give an example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House has told hon. Members that there is to be a Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment. We cannot now enter on a discussion, which would only be in anticipation of the Debate on that Motion.

Mr. A. Bevan: I wish to put a question arising out of the answer just given to the hon. Member for Northern Cornwall (Mr. Horabin). I understand that the Government cannot make known their military intentions for reasons which are obvious to everybody, but some of us have certain things to say to the House and to the Government which cannot be said in public without advantage to the enemy. Should it not be possible for the Government to co-operate with us to provide for a Secret Session, so that the Government might hear what some Members of the House have to say to them on the war situation? If not, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is a matter which lies within the province of the House and that we may, ourselves, take steps to ask the House to assist us to have a Secret Session?

Sir S. Cripps: In this matter I am only anxious, naturally, to serve the wishes of the House, but those wishes are not always the same in all quarters of the House. There are, as the hon. Member knows, many Members of the House who object to Secret Sessions, and there has been a certain amount of criticism of the Government for having Secret Sessions.

Mr. Bevan: You always have them when you want them.

Sir S. Cripps: We have them when we think the House would wish to have them. We have quite recently had a Secret Session in which hon. Members were in a position to put forward, in secret, any views they wished, and the Government do not think that at the moment it would be in accordance with the general wishes of the House, or would be useful, to have a further Secret Session.

Sir W. Davison: Does not all this show how desirable it is that the House should meet again in a fortnight's time, when, possibly, the position may have altered?

Dr. Haden Guest: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of his own statement made on 20th May—now over two months ago—that the Government were making a carefully-planned attack on the Continent of Europe, it is not treating the House with a certain degree of contempt at this crisis of our history, that no statement is to be made to us on the war situation before we adjourn for the period proposed?

Sir S. Cripps: I should have thought that that was a very good reason for not making a statement—

Dr. Guest: In secret?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, in secret. I explained to the House before, and I should like to reiterate the statement, if the hon. Member was not here on the previous occasion, that on a matter of such gravity and such risk to so many people it is impossible to commit it even to 615 separate people. The risk is too great in certain matters.

Colonel Arthur Evans: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of procedure? Would you be good enough to inform the House whether there is any method under the Rules and Procedure of the House, whereby a substantial number

of Members of the House, irrespective of the Executive of the day, can represent to you, Sir, that, in their view, it is in the national interest that the House should be summoned?

Mr. Speaker: I can only say that hon. Members should take steps through the ordinary channels.

Mr. Shinwell: But the ordinary channels have been ignored.

Mr. Stokes: May I put this point to the Leader of the House with regard to the question of a Secret Session? Does he recollect that on 15th May last year, the Prime Minister said it was not for the Government to say whether Secret Sessions should take place or not, but for this House to decide, and that ever since then we have had a series of Secret Sessions organised by the Government at which we have been, told nothing that could not have been stated in public? We are now in a position in which certain hon. Members desire to say something to the Government which cannot be said in public, and is it not right, in that case, that the Government should reconsider their present decision?

Sir S. Cripps: In this matter the Government attempt to arrange things in accordance with the general view of the House, and I assure the hon. Member that his views are not always shared by everybody else in the House.

Mr. Bellenger: May I put this point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? We have only recently had a Secret Session, and, of course, if the circumstances did not warrant, and if the House was not shortly going into Recess, perhaps it would have been unnecessary at this stage to ask for a further Secret Session. But, in the present circumstances, in view of the gravity of the situation and the fact that certain hon. Members desire to put certain matters before the Government—not necessarily in the nature of a second front Debate—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pay attention to the wishes of the House? He is probably aware that it is within the province of any hon. Member to spy Strangers, though we would rather not do that on our own initiative if the Government will accede to our request.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member, like every other hon. Member, can, of course,


spy Strangers, but it might not be very useful to do so if the Debate were not on a subject-matter which would cover the points it was desired to raise.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not possible for hon. Members who have advice to give to the Government on the conduct of the war, to put that advice into letters and send them to the Government?

Sir Reginald Clarry: Do we understand that the House will have an opportunity of deciding what is to be the period of the Recess? There is a large body of opinion which considers that the period proposed is too long.

Mr. Speaker: There will be a Motion on the subject before the House at a subsequent Sitting.

Mr. W. Brown: I desire to raise a lesser but still substantial point in connection with the order of Business, though if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes at this moment to deal with the wider issues involved, I am prepared to give way. My point arises out of a reply given by the Leader of the House yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), which, I understand, was asked without notice having been given to another hon. Member who is concerned. The question was whether we were likely to have a Debate on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on a case which affects the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall). The Leader of the House replied that, at the moment, the minutes of evidence were not available, and it was understood of course that, in those circumstances, we could not have such a Debate. I wish to ask whether the evidence is likely to be available before the House rises, and, if so, could we have a Debate on this matter before the House rises, or, alternatively, if the evidence is not likely to be available until after the resumption, could we have a Debate as soon as it is available?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I could not answer the second question now, but I am informed that the evidence will not be available before the Adjournment.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the Government have reconsidered their decision not to have a Debate before the Recess on the subject of the proposed increases

in soldiers' pay and allowances to dependants; and if they cannot afford facilities for such a Debate before the Recess, could they give a firm assurance to the House that on our reassembly and after the Government's consideration of any proposals which they get from the Service Departments, they will have a Debate immediately?

Sir S. Cripps: Opportunities for debating this matter will be given, as I have already said, soon after we resume. I cannot say "immediately," but it will be very soon after the resumption.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I go back to the main question and make an appeal to the Leader of the House? The House is now about to adjourn—or the Government suggest that it should adjourn—for some weeks. Events are moving terribly quickly. Definite pledges seem to have been given by the Prime Minister and by the President of America. These matters are being discussed up and down the country, and there is tremendous public interest. Meetings are being held. Is it not possible for this House to exercise its position as the voice of democracy and to discuss these matters, or must we adjourn and await events?

Sir S. Cripps: I have already answered several times the hon. and learned Member's question, in the course of the answers I have given.

Mr. Thorne: Meet five days a week, as we did before the war, if you want to get through the Business.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to make a personal explanation. A Question on the Paper, No. 22, refers to an incident in Weston-super-Mare in which a man and wife from my constituency had been killed in a blitz. A very young collier son, who had been sent for, went to Weston-super-Mare to identify the bodies. While he was there he was seen by someone and was asked to leave the question of the burial of those two people to somebody else. Someone tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Leave it to us." When the Question was put, the Minister made his reply. In a Supplementary Question, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) suggested that this. Question was slanderous


on his constituents, was based on insufficient evidence and that the hon. Member who had put the Question had taken no steps to verify the statements in it. I want to say. Sir, that this young collier boy was sent for from South Wales and that he was accompanied by a very responsible local welfare worker. That local welfare worker was with him at the mortuary when the bodies were identified. He confirms that they were touted, and the bill which was sent by this undertaker in Weston-super-Mare, amounting to over £50 for those two bodies, is in the possession of the Minister of Health, who has charge of the Civilian Injuries Scheme. I took reasonable steps to test the evidence before puting it to this House. I accepted the word of the highly respected local welfare worker, and I took the statement down in writing. I can assure the hon. Member that there was no intention of slandering his constituents but there was a desire to prevent inhuman exploitation of a tragedy of this sort.

Sir W. Womersley: May I be allowed to say a word on this matter? When the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) brought this matter to my notice I took it as a very serious charge. My Department is responsible for dealing with the relatives of victims of these air raids, paying out allowances immediately and giving help wherever we can. I have given very strict instructions to members of my staff in regard to this question of charges for funerals. I have said in this House that I would not allow exploitation of the victims of enemy action. As soon as I received that notice from the hon. Member I sent down for a full report from my own people, not from the local authorities. Perhaps I might be allowed to read an extract from the report:
I am informed that my staff explored every inch of Weston, interviewing widows and paying special temporary allowances, but in no instance did they hear any allusion that undertakers were touting for funeral grants. In the course of their inquiries they ascertained that some victims were being buried under the local authority communal system and in only one case was an application made for a funeral grant from this Ministry. The form was completed on the spot and the grant is being dealt with.
Not satisfied with that, I sent down a special inquiry officer. He made a full inquiry, and he interviewed not only the son Edward but the deceased man's

brother, Mr. Brake. They were both called to Weston to identify the victims. The information received is this. Mr. Brake gave this information:
They were not touted or canvassed by undertakers in any way; that, while at the mortuary, they asked the official in charge if he could recommend an undertaker. He did so and they immediately rang up and were given an estimate over the phone The prices in question ranged from 10 to 18 guineas, and the decision was left to the son Edward, who agreed to pay 18 guineas.
I am going to suggest to my hon. Friend that, in a case of that kind, where the relatives, after knowing the full circumstances, knowing that the bodies could have been buried by the local authority without any charge whatever, and knowing also that the grant due from my Department is £7 10s. and where they, knowing all that, make arrangements themselves and agree to pay what I consider a very high figure—I have the bill here—we cannot say that that is because they had been touted. It is just a matter of using their own free will. As to whether the gentleman in question was authorised to give instructions for funerals or whether it should have been left to the son, that is a matter for them to decide. I believe there is a little difficulty on that point as between the two relatives. In fairness and justice to my own officials and the local authority officials in Weston, I think a general and sweeping charge that there has been touting generally is going a little too far. As regards the bill, it might interest the House to know that this coffin was upholstered in swansdown complete with chromium-plated fittings and engraved, at 18 guineas.

Mr. Edwards: Would the right hon. Gentleman not read the rest of the bill?

Sir W. Womersley: It refers to other charges, such as railway companies' charges for conveying the coffin from Weston to the place where they wanted the burial to take place. I am not concerned with that, of course. I am concerned with the charges made by the undertaker for his own work.

Mr. Edwards: May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he has had the information from the wrong person?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I add my word to the attack made by the hon. Member? I think he raised objection to the Supplementary Question that I put to the


Minister of Pensions. I would like to assure him that there is nothing personal in this matter. I would also like to say that I have a letter in my hand from the local authority that leads me to believe that very little inquiry was made by those who gave the information to the hon. Member. Is it right or wise for Members of this House, among whom I include myself, to put Questions on the Paper containing statements of fact when those statements may have a very damaging effect? Could we have your guidance and advice, Mr. Speaker, as to whether in a case like that Questions should not be put in the form of a Question rather than in the form of a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I have already given a Ruling on that point. Hon. Members should verify their facts before they put them on the Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered; that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before the hour appointed for the interruption of Business; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 28th July shall have been agreed to before the hour at which Mr. Speaker is directed, by paragraph 7 of the Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith certain Questions, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith those Questions."—[Sir Stafford Cripps.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir Stafford Cripps.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [28th July].

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI MATES, 1942.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,083,630 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the charges for the following Departments connected with Civil Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1942.



£


Class X., Vote 6, Ministry of Home Security
90


Class X., Vote 5, Ministry of Health (War Services)
90


Class III., Vote 1, Home Office
1,083,450



£1,083,630"

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,382,732, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the charges for the following Departments connected with Agriculture and Food for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1942.



£


Class VI., Vote 7, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
2,382,552


Class X., Vote 1, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (War Services)
90


Class X., Vote 4, Ministry of Food
90



£2,382,732"

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1942.

CLASS I.

3. "That a sum not exceeding £1,890,770 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. House of Lords Offices
40,038


2. House of Commons
335,661


3. Registration of Electors
20,000


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments (including a Supplementary sum of £17,390)
541,063


5. Privy Council Office
13,528


6. Privy Seal Office
5,362


7. Charity Commission
25,108


8. Civil Service Commission
15,605


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
152,860


10. Friendly Societies' Deficiency
2,968


11. Government Actuary
13,134


12. Government Chemist
60,692


13. Government Hospitality
13,000


14. Import Duties Advisory Committee
2,907


15. The Mint
90


16. National Debt Office
5,012


17. National Savings Committee
300,420


18. Public Record Office
28,305


19. Public Works Loan Commission
14,080


20. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
25,000


21. Royal Commissions, Etc.
25,000


22. Miscellaneous Expenses
50,049


23. Secret Service
90


24. Treasury Chest Fund
43,260


25. Tithe Redemption Commission
90


26. Scottish Home Department
154,560


27. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
2,888



£1,890,770"

CLASS II.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,153,296, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will


come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Foreign Office
710,275


2. Diplomatic and Consular Services (including a Supplementary sum of £41,500)
1,931,039


3. League of Nations
1,010


4. Dominions Office
51,525


5. Dominion Services (including a Supplementary sum of £36,500)
210,862


6. Oversea Settlement
90


7. Colonial Office
180,000


8. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
3,395,662


8A. Site for Moslem Mosque
60,000


9. Development and Welfare (Colonies, Etc.)
1,107,000


10. Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories, Etc.)
24,000


11. India and Burma Services
1,470,417


12. Imperial War Graves Commission
11,416



£9,153,296"

CLASS III.

5. "That a sum not exceeding £9,572,626, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
76,990


3. Police, England and Wales
5,739,710


4. Prisons, England and Wales
853,812


5. Approved Schools, Etc., England and Wales
479,500


6. Supreme Court of Judicature, Etc.
90


7. County Courts
333,317


8. Land Registry
45,293


9. Public Trustee
10,090


10. Law Charges
132,618


11. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
18,531


Scotland.


12. Police, Scotland
1,032,315


13. Prisons, Scotland
108,479


14. Approved Schools, etc., Scotland
60,750


15. Scottish Land Court
4,278


16. Law Charges and Courts of Law
44,258


17. Register House, Edinburgh
22,878


Ireland.


18. Northern Ireland Services
3,836


19. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
8,566

CLASS IV.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £51,130,417, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services in cluded in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Board of Education
38,263,118


2. British Museum
99,245


3. British Museum (Natural History)
57,712


4. Imperial War Museum
8,184


5. London Museum
2,792


6. National Gallery
22,882


7. National Maritime Museum
7,508


8. National Portrait Gallery
5,976


9. Wallace Collection
8,070


10. Scientific Investigation, etc.
212,098


11. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
1,149,000


12. Broadcasting
6,000,000


Scotland.


13. Public Education
5,283,414


14. National Galleries
8,739


15. National Library
1,679



£51,130,417"

CLASS V.

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £118,991,824, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Ministry of Health
17,402,771


2. Board of Control
139,495


3. Registrar General's Office
166,722


4. National Insurance Audit Department
99,770


5. Friendly Societies Registry
30,060


6. Old Age Pensions
32,650,000


7. Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
16,525,000


8. Ministry of Labour and National Service
20,480,000


9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
1,500,000


10. Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales)
90


11. Assistance Board
5,870,000


12. Special Areas Fund
600,000


13. Financial Assistance in Special and other Areas
60,800


14. Supplementary Pensions
20,460,000

CLASS VI.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,656,771, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Board of Trade
984,583


2. Mercantile Marine Services
862,614


3. Department of Overseas Trade
229,073


4. Exports Credits
195,733


6. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
26,099


8. Surveys of Great Britain
400,495


9. Forestry Commission
425,000


10. Roads, &amp;c
4,864,500


11. Miscellaneous Transport Services
19,733


12. Development Fund
411,000


13. Development Grants
334,400


14. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
478,596


15. State Management Districts
90


16. Clearing Offices
90


Scotland.


17. Department of Agriculture
403,201


18. Fisheries
21,329


19. Herring Industry
235



£9,656,771"

CLASS VII.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,498,737, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Art and Science Buildings Great Britain
134,435


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
43,140


3. Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain
373,665


4. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
64,050


5. Osborne
11,855


6A. Ministry of Works and Planning
4,415,400


7. Miscellaneous Works Services (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)
114,035


8. Public Buildings Overseas
60,710


9. Royal Palaces
75,165


10. Revenue Buildings
846,270


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
145,435

CLASS VIII.

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,094,008, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
152,508


2. Ministry of Pensions
21,679,500


3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &amp;c.
760,000


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)
1,502,000



£24,094,008"

CLASS IX.

11. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,517,859, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
28,018,000


2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
4,499,859



£32,517,859"

CLASS X.

12. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimate, namely:

£


2. Ministry of Aircraft Production
90


3. Ministry of Economic Warfare
90


7. Ministry of Information
90


8. Ministry of Labour and National Service (War Services)
90


10A. Ministry of Fuel and Power
100


11. Ministry of Supply
90


12. War Damage (Business and Private Chattels)
90

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1942.

13. "That a sum not exceeding £78,866,970, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

£


1. Customs and Excise
4,196,800


2. Inland Revenue
8,147,170


3. Post Office
66,523,000



£78,866,970"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1942.

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

£


2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
100


3. Medical Establishments and Services
100


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
100


5. Educational Services
100


6. Scientific Services
100


7. Royal Naval Reserves
100


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, Etc.:



Section I.—Personnel
100


Section II.—Matériel
100


Section III.—Contract Work
100


9. Naval Armaments
100


10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
100


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


12. Admiralty Office
100


13. Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers
100


14. Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Men
100

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1942.

15. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:

£


2. Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
100


3. Medical Services
100


4. Educational Establishments
100


5. Quartering and Movements
100


6. Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts
100


7. Clothing
100


8. General Stores
100


9. Warlike Stores
100


10. Works, Buildings and Lands
100


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


12. War Office
100


13. Half-Pay, Retired Pay and other Non - Effective Charges for Officers
100


14. Pensions and other Non Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, Men and others
100


15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities
100



£1,400"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1942.

16. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

£


2. Quartering, Non-Technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation
100


3. Technical and Warlike Stores
100


4. Works, Buildings and Lands
100


5. Medical Services
100


6. Educational Services
100


7. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces
100


8. Civil Aviation
100


9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


10. Air Ministry
100


11. Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
100



£1,000"

CIVIL DEFENCE.

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,"

Sir Harold Webbe: I desire to raise a matter which I know is causing serious concern not only to Members of this House but also to the great local authorities, to whom we are under such a debt of gratitude for their work in building up our Civil Defence Services. I shall try to be reasonably brief because I know that there are other hon. Members who are anxious to take part in this discussion. A month or so ago the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Home Security, in accordance with his obligations under Section 10 of the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1937, began an investigation into the working of the financial provisions of that Act, with particular reference to the expenses which fall to be borne by the ratepayers. The Minister's report on that investigation has now been presented to the House in the form of a White Paper, No. 6,356. That White Paper also contains the decisions which the Minister has reached as to the future financial arrangements with the local authorities.
I shall not attempt to consider in any detail the effect which these decisions have upon individual local authorities or upon particular types of local authority; but I can say with sincerity that the local authorities are very gravely disturbed not only by the decisions themselves but perhaps still more by the attitude of mind on the part of the Minister which those decisions seem to involve. I am certain that every Member of the House, and certainly no one more than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister himself, recognises the very important position which the local authorities occupy in the whole of our administrative machinery of Government. It would be in my view a calamity if those great local authorities in any way lost their confidence in the good faith of the central Government. No one will agree with me more heartily, on that, I know, than the Minister himself, but I am bound to remind him that that confidence has already received a certain shock from his own action in the autumn of 1940 in raising the grant in respect of shelter provision to 100 per cent. and refusing to make that decision retrospective.
At the time when this was done I listened to the Minister's defence and explanation of his action, but I am sorry to say that I remained entirely unconvinced by his arguments. The plain fact remains that a number of local authorities which had been laggard in the performance of their duty as shelter authorities found themselves being substantially better treated than other authorities which had really put their back into the job. There is no doubt that a very large number of local authorities felt that they were suffering a serious injustice in the action which the Minister then took. But even those authorities who were prepared to accept that particular action as a piece of rather hasty and rather chicken-hearted administration, were shocked when they saw in the report now published in the White Paper decisions which so clearly ignore the whole conditions in which the original arrangements with the local authorities were made, and so completely ignore what was obviously in the minds of the Government and of the local authorities when they were made.
I must, I am afraid, ask the House to think for a moment of the past history of the whole business. The original negotiations between the Government and the local authorities were not concerned with Civil Defence as we know it to-day. They were concerned with air raid precautions, with the preparatory steps which had to be taken in anticipation of the needs which might arise for defence against air attack. The financial arrangements which were then made were obviously, from the contents of the Bill itself, of a provisional character. In those days the leader and the spokesman of the local authorities was the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Home Security. It has not been my habit in recent years too often to hand bouquets, to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do pay a sincere tribute to the skill and tact with which he handled these particular negotiations. What was his approach, what was his point of view? It was a very simple one; representing the whole of the local authorities, he put it to the Government that these air raid precautions and anything which flowed from them clearly had no relation whatever to local authority boundaries, that the whole service was in essence a national service, and that its whole cost should


therefore logically be met out of national funds.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that case with all his usual eloquence, and with even more than his usual sincerity and force. He did not succeed in getting the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Samuel Hoare). The reply of the Government was that the expenditure likely to be involved was comparatively trivial in character by comparison with normal local government expenditure, and that at the outside the product of a penny rate was probably its measure. The right hon. Gentleman, like the keen negotiator he is, immediately asked the Minister to back his opinion by giving a guarantee to the local authorities that they would be reimbursed for anything beyond a penny rate. Again he failed. At this point the negotiations passed, on the Government side, into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Lord President of the Council. The local authorities resumed discussions with him, and again the leader of the local authorities pressed the 100 per cent. point on the Government, and, realising he was then dealing with a Scotsman, put his figure up to 2d. Again he failed to get satisfaction, but he succeeded in obtaining from the Government a graded system of grants, graded to meet the circumstances of different types of local authorities. Furthermore, instead of a guarantee he got an undertaking from the Government that the whole position should be reviewed in a reasonable time. That undertaking was embodied in Section 10 of the Act. That is the history of these negotiations, and that was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when he had the responsibility of putting the case for the local authorities.
Since then, of course, the original air raid precautions business has grown out of all recognition. The burden assumed by the Government has grown until now it is colossal, but at the same time the margin left to be covered by the local authorities out of rates has also grown, and grown to very considerable proportions. The right hon. Gentleman knows even better than I do with what misgivings the local authorities watched this development of the increase in the burden likely to fall upon them. But always they were met by the Government with the undertaking of review, and the assurance that that review would adjust anything which was unjust in the arrangements

which had been made by the Government. What is the position now? The investigation has been made. When that investigation showed the real picture, and the local authorities understood the magnitude of the job, they made a proposal to the Government. They proposed, not that they should be reimbursed everything above a penny rate, or even everything above a 2d. rate, but that they should be reimbursed 50 per cent. of everything above a 3d. rate.
In my submission, that proposal was not only reasonable; it was indeed, on the part of the local authorities, a generous proposal. The Minister declined to accept it. Instead, he now offers the local authorities 50 per cent. of the excess of a 6d. rate, a figure which was never in the minds, still less on the lips, of anyone who was engaged in the earlier negotiations. Even these grants are not unconditional. They are made subject to two conditions, the combined effect of which is to cut out altogether a very large number of local authorities—more than half the metropolitan boroughs, I think, and 63 out of 84 county boroughs. Practically every one of the heavily bombed areas is completely cut off from any supplementary grant and has to bear the whole burden beyond the actual grants agreed for all authorities. Bristol, Plymouth, Hull, Coventry—all these authorities are completely cut out with the big majority of the other local authorities.
I do not want to go into detail, but I want to offer some comment on the conditions which are laid down. The first point is that no grant will be payable unless the rate levied by the authority is above the average for similar authorities. I think I can guess what was in the Minister's mind in trying to impose a condition of this kind, but I am quite certain that the Minister himself is not responsible for the drafting of that condition, because he knows, better than almost anyone, with his long experience of rating problems, that this condition as it stands is really meaningless. A comparison between the rates levied by two authorities means nothing at all unless you take into account also the basis of assessment adopted by those authorities, and the Minister knows perfectly well that even in the restricted area of London the assessment policy varies tremendously, that there are some authorities which deliberately


prefer a policy of high assessments and low rates, and others whose policy is low assessments and high rates, so that a mere comparison of rates is meaningless unless the other factor of the basis of assessment is taken into account.
The second condition is that no grant is payable unless the authority has raised its rate at least 6d. above the pre-war level. That condition, the purpose of which again is plain, causes extreme injustice and hardship in a great many cases. There is a large number of local authorities in this country which have adopted the practice, which I believe was right in the circum stances and difficulties in which we find ourselves, of cutting out every possible element of their normal services that they can do without. They have postponed maintenance work, upkeep of roads, and everything of that kind, all in the interests of setting free as many facilities, as much equipment and as much labour as possible, for the national effort. By effecting these economies they have succeeded in holding the rates down. Now, by this decision of the Minister, they are actually penalised for their own efficiency. I do not think it is at all surprising that many local authorities regard the decision conveyed in the White Paper as a breach of faith on the part of the Government. I do not venture to use that phrase, because I know that my right hon. Friend will tell me that there was no binding agreement. I admit that, but I submit that these decisions certainly represent a complete breach of the honourable understanding, the gentlemen's agreement, on which these negotiations with the Government in the early days were based. That is a very serious position.
The Minister's justification for his decisions is contained in the White Paper itself. He points, in paragraphs 3 and 4 I think it is, to the very large share of expenditure now being borne by the Government. He points out that that now amounts to as much as nearly 90 per cent. of the total. All that is fully recognised by the local authorities, but the Minister must not expect the authorities to be tremendously grateful for that. He must remember the atmosphere which he himself did so much to create, the opinion which he himself put to the Government in the original negotiations that this national service should be, not 90 per cent. a national charge, but 100 per

cent. The only considerations on which the right hon. Geentleman in those days was willing to forgo the 100 per cent. were not considerations of justice and logic, but considerations of clean and effective administration. Therefore, the fact that the Government are now paying 90 per cent. is no cause for gratitude. But local authorities and ratepayers are not particularly interested in percentages: they are interested in hard cash. Local authorities are concerned at the actual amount of cash which is represented by the 10 per cent. that they still have to pay.
The second excuse which the Minister gives is that it really does not matter very much what he gives to the local authorities, because he has an extremely generous friend and colleague in the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and any local authority which finds itself in difficulty because of the Minister of Home Security's mean method of dealing with things can go to the Minister of Health, and, if it proves that it really needs it, it can get substantial assistance. The Minister does not point out that part of that assistance is by loan, which may after the war prove a nasty load for the local authority. But that is not the point. The local authorities are not asking for doles, certainly not for doles which are the subject of a means test. That is a doctrine upon which I have heard the right hon. Gentleman speak very eloquently in the past. He has never been a great friend of doles or of the means test. The local authorities ask only that the arrangements and the understandings which were come to in the initial negotiations between themselves and the Government should be honoured in the spirit in which they were made.
I may have spoken rather strongly on this matter. I believe it is of great importance. I believe the Minister's decision has created a very bad atmosphere among a great many local authorities. If I am thought to have spoken strongly, I ask Members to imagine what would have happened if the right hon. Gentleman's high qualities, by any mischance, had been overlooked by the Prime Minister, and he had found himself on the opposite bench to the one which he now adorns. Then, I think, the local authorities would indeed have found a champion. I can imagine him thumping that Box opposite, burning with righteous indignation, tearing the very words of


previous Home Secretaries out of the records and throwing them back in their teeth, and calling on Heaven and the "Daily Herald" to bear witness that he alone among the prophets had foretold that a decadent Government could never have been expected to honour their word. I do not attempt to rely on invective. I always yield pride of place in that to my right hon. Friend. But in all sincerity, I ask him to reconsider a decision which is not a credit to his own consistency, and which I think inevitably must lead to serious suspicion on the part of local authorities. I believe that it is not possible to test the feeling of the House by a Division, but I hope that those who follow me will leave in the Minister's mind no doubt whatever about the strong feelings which have been aroused among the local authorities and among all those who value the important part that those authorities have played, and still have to play, in our national administration.

Mr. Brooke: I am very grateful indeed that the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) has seized this opportunity of ventilating in the House of Commons this important subject, and I would congratulate him warmly on the way in which he has done it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security and I probably have one thing in common. We have probably both in the last few days read through the instructive Debate which took place in this House on 15th and 16th November, 1937, on the Second Reading of the Air Raid Precautions Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman divided the House against the Second Reading, on the precisely opposite ground to that which I presume he is now proposing to defend. There is a valuable rule in this House against the reading of speeches. I do not know whether it applies to the reading of other Members' speeches, but I am rather tempted to read to my right hon. Friend and to the House the speech which he delivered on that occasion. A powerful speech indeed it was. But in any case, I am quite sure that at the end of this Debate we shall hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Home Security refuting in detail the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) 4½ years ago—and I am quite certain of his

ability to indulge successfully in that exercise of dialectic.
I wish to make it clear that I am not raising this subject for any personal or party reasons against him. I very much nope that he and I and the whole House are at one in that we all want to serve the sole purpose of making as friendly, as helpful, as fruitful, as possible the future relationship between the central Government and the local authorities. It is be cause some of us feel that in recent times action has been taken which has jeopardised that relationship, that we feel it absolutely necessary to draw the attention of the House to the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division gave a resume of the principal arguments used four or five years ago. I think it is important that the House should have on record exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), who was then Home Secretary, said in that Debate. He said:
The average expenditure of the local authorities ought not to exceed a penny rate, and … in many cases it ought to be much below a penny rate.

Mr. Woods: Was not that based on an assumption that matchboxes almost would do as air-raid shelters; and were not the preparations on such a microscopic scale that a penny rate would have been ample?

Mr. Brooke: I do not see the force of that interruption. At any rate, perhaps the hon. Member will let me proceed with the quotation:
If our estimates are wrong, obviously a new situation will arise, and. … this or any other Government would then have to meet the representatives of local authorities and reconsider the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1937; cols. 51–54, Vol. 329.]
I was a member of a local authority at that time, and I can assure the House that local authorities generally took it to mean that there would be sincere reconsideration and a most genuine attempt, on behalf of the central Government, to treat local authorities fairly and sympathetically, if that forecast of a penny rate limit proved to be seriously wrong. What is the position we have at present? I cannot speak for the rest of the country—other hon. Members can do that—but in London the average rate in respect of Civil Defence is not 1d., but about 7½d. The Minister now says that he will offer a 50 per cent. supplementary grant


in certain cases where the Civil Defence rate is over 6d. That would be a clean issue. Personally, I agree with the local authorities that the figure should be fixed at 3d. and not 6d. But it would be a clean issue.
Then he tries a new argument, and says, "No, it would be unreasonable to give that grant in all cases. We must give it only in the really hard cases. We must give it only to those authorities which have to charge higher total rates." That argument, too, I can understand. I can understand his wanting to make this grant a sort of equalisation of rates grant as well. I do not think that it is right, but it is comprehensible. But, having reached that point, he then turns right round on himself and says, "No, it is not really to be a Civil Defence grant or an equalisation of rates grant. I am going to bring in a further condition, and I am going to help only those authorities which have increased their rate by more than 6d. during the war." So that, in fact, some of the very high-rated authorities in the country who are also carrying heavy Civil Defence burdens, such as Bermondsey, are going to get no assistance whatever under the proposals of the Minister.
May I put before the House the concrete case of the borough, part of which I have the honour to represent? The rates in Lewisham at present are 13s. 4d. Lewisham carries a Civil Defence burden equivalent to about a 10½d. rate. Another borough in London—Hammersmith—has just about the same Civil Defence rate. Lewisham, though the Civil Defence rate is 4½d. above the 6d. limit, and although its total rate has been increased by a shilling since before the war, is to get no assistance at all solely because of the condition that assistance would be given only to those authorities whose total rates are above the average level of similar authorities; and that average level in London being about 13s. 6d. and Lewisham's rate being 13s. 4d., Lewisham is to receive nothing. The borough of Hammersmith—I do not grudge it to them—because they have a rate of 14s. are to get about 2¼d. off their Civil Defence rate reimbursed to them under this White Paper and consequent circular, and yet I think it is reasonable for me to argue that the war has financially hit Hammersmith

ratepayers less heavily than it has hit Lewisham. The rates of Lewisham have risen by a shilling in the £1, and the rates of Hammersmith have risen by only 7d. But, of course, when you introduce a triple set of conditions of this character, when you get away from a clear-cut issue, the inevitable result is that anomalies will occur and that there will be differences of treatment between one authority and another which are absolutely indefensible by any form of logic.
I pointed out to the House that the reason why the Borough of Lewisham is to receive no supplementary grant is because its rates are 13s. 4d., a fraction below the average level for London. Why have the rates been kept down to that? Partly by economical administration, and partly by the assistance received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who has made to Lewisham one of these advances to meet war conditions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division. Had it not been for that advance from the Ministry of Health last year, the Lewisham rate would have been not 13s. 4d., but 18s. 11d., and Lewisham would have qualified hands down, so to speak, for additional supplementary grant in respect of its Civil Defence expenditure. But the Minister of Health has kindly come along with this assistance, equivalent to a 5s. 7d. rate last year. That assistance is very commonly supposed to be, as it were, free of charge. It is not. Seventy-five per cent. only of that is by way of grant and the rest is by way of loan, and the price which Lewisham has to pay for keeping its rate at 13s. 4d. is the incurring of a debt to the Ministry of Health equivalent last year to about a 1s. 5d. rate in the £. That hangs over Lewisham, but, because it is a debt payable after the war and not an immediate obligation, the Minister of Home Security says, "No, I am sorry I can take no account of that. I am not going to consider your debts in my ascertainment of your financial need at all. I can give you no help under the conditions of my White Paper."
This kind of treatment of local authorities will cumulatively have dangerous effects. The local authorities have shown themselves almost without exception anxious to co-operate completely with the central Government in safe-guarding


the people of the country against enemy action. We all know that there were one or two exceptions, but I am sure the Minister would endorse in general what I have just said. Their treasurers and financial officers have been through a period of two or three years of what I can only describe as pin-pricking negotiations with the central Government on Civil Defence. The negotiations were bound to be difficult. We all realise that, and I am not going to argue that all the defect has been on the one side, but in the manner in which it has been handled by the central Government, which, after all, was in a position to dictate in these matters, an enormous amount of petty accountancy work, petty disputes and petty controversy about what is or is not allowed to be ranked as grant-earning Civil Defence expenditure has gone on.
Now, in his latest circular the Minister has, in my opinion, gone a long way to meet many of those trivial points that have been the subject of argument for a long time past. If he would instruct his officials to handle and decide these things far faster than they have been handled and decided up to now, that, I believe, would be one of the greatest gifts of all that he could give to local authorities, finance committees and borough treasurers. If I may interpolate this, it is now five weeks since I drew his attention in this House to a certain anomaly as regards the subsistence allowances of fire-watchers being in some cases fully reimbursed and in other cases only partly grant-aided, though the effective conditions were exactly the same. On his behalf the Parliamentary Secretary promised that that was being attended to, but, up to yesterday, at any rate, nothing had happened and that anomaly still persisted, with the extra consequent burden on local rates. If all that kind of thing could be settled swiftly instead of with delay, the local authorities would be extremely grateful to the Minister.
I have put this case as strongly as I can. I hope we shall receive a considered reply from the Minister and that he will show he is prepared to do all in his power towards improving the co-operation, and removing the friction which has hitherto existed, between the central Government and the local authorities on Civil Defence finance. I will not argue, as he did, 4½

years ago, that there should be a 100 per cent. grant all along the line for Civil Defence. I, personally, think there are dangers in a 100 per cent. grant, even though he has apparently found no difficulty in conceding it in particular directions, and even though the local authorities maintain, as they certainly do in London, that their expenditure is rigidly controlled in Civil Defence matters by the Regional Commissioners It is not for a 100 per cent. reimbursement that I am pleading to-day; I am pleading with the Minister of Home Security to make it his care to meet the reasonable requests of local authorities and their financial officers in this whole matter, so that co-operation in the future shall be quicker and closer in order to serve better the prosecution of the war.

Mrs. Adamson: I desire to support the case which has been presented to this House by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) and the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). It is true to say that local authorities have been very much disturbed by the White Paper proposals in regard to this question of Civil Defence. The proposals are so complicated and the conditions laid down are so difficult to understand that even the financial experts of local authorities cannot say whether they will profit by the conditions or whether they will get any relief under the scheme. The local authorities feel they have not had a square deal. I represent a constituency which is in a target area, part of which comes under the London Regional Commissioner and part under another Commissioner. We find that when local authorities come under the London Regional Commissioner they have to comply with the Regulations and requirements of the Home Office in regard to Civil Defence, and in this respect it is true that these requirements for London are very stringent, and must necessarily be so, because of the position of London.
Yet the local authorities in my constituency which have to comply with these requirements and come under the London Regional Commissioner have not received the same consideration in regard to financial assistance as have their neighbouring boroughs in London. They feel they have had a raw deal, and they have asked me to protest to-day very strongly against the position that has arisen and against


the White Paper proposals. There was a meeting of local authorities in my constituency, to which every local authority sent a representative, who discussed very fully this White Paper. No matter what the political complexions of the local authorities were, everyone was unanimous in condemnation of the White Paper proposals. So I was asked to voice my protest in this House about the treatment meted out to these local authorities by the Home Office and by the Government. The local authorities in my constituency hold a different view from that of the hon. Member for West Lewisham. They believe that all expenditure by local authorities for Civil Defence, within the London Civil Defence region should be fully reimbursed by the Government, provided that the expenditure has been authorised by the appropriate Government Department and that it is truly vouched for to the satisfaction of the Government auditor. They claim that the expenditure for Civil Defence should be treated as a national expenditure and should not fall upon local authorities at all.
Local authorities have received reimbursement in full for other services, and I believe they have carried out their duties to the satisfaction of Government Departments and auditors. They are neither rogues nor fools; the majority of them set a very high standard of administration, and I am quite certain that if a Government Department thought anything was not quite up to standard, they could put a check and the necessary curb on the local authority. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster said that the Minister had conveyed the implication that if local authorities were in financial difficulties they could go to the Ministry of Health, but in Kent we have not been able to do that because the treatment which has been meted out to us has been different from that which has been meted out to neighbouring boroughs in the County of London. Although we have tried in every way by peaceful persuasion to get consideration for our point of view, and a grant, we have been turned down. In Kent consideration was given to coastal districts, but no consideration has been given to the local authorities in my constituency. The Department have simply played off one area against another, and

we protest most strongly against the differential treatment meted out by grants to London boroughs and to local authorities which come in the outer belt of London.
So, we have a double grievance. I have made this protest on behalf of the local authorities in my constituency. I do not claim to be a financial expert on municipal affairs, but I agree very fully with the observations made and the case presented to the House to-day. I hope we shall get not only a reasoned reply from the Minister but some concessions. I think it is a disgraceful thing that local authorities should be told that they must be practically on the point of bankruptcy before the Government can come to their aid. I hope we shall get some satisfaction and that the demands that Civil Defence expenditure shall be a national charge will be fully conceded by the Home Office.

Mrs. Tate: I do not wish to follow the arguments that have been made by other hon. Members—except to say that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with them—because the case has been fully put and does not need repetition by me. There are certain other aspects of Civil Defence to which I wish to refer. I think that no one who appreciates the present war position can feel that we can make preparations which could be too adequate for the situation with which we are very likely to be faced in the future, and it is imperative before the coming winter that we should feel that our Civil Defence services are at the maximum of efficiency.
I have never quite understood why the hours of women and men Civil Defence workers are different. I believe that women have contributed at least as effectively to the Civil Defence services as have men, and I believe it would be satisfactory if they worked for the same number of hours. I quite agree that that may not suit the Government, because doubtless they base their case for the differentiation in the pay of men and women Civil Defence workers on the differentiation in hours, but I should like to see that difference done away with both as regards the hours and as regards the pay. There has been a considerable discussion in the Press as to whether or not fire watching is to be made compulsory for women at some date in the future. I think that no woman can have a greater


honour or greater privilege than to he allowed to make the maximum contribution of which she is capable to the war effort and to the assistance of the country in its hour of danger. Therefore, in principle, I am very strongly in favour of fire watching being made compulsory for women as it is for men, but not while women, if injured in the course of such service, are compensated at a rate two-thirds that of men.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must not discuss questions of compensation, which do not come under this Vote.

Mrs. Tate: Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but surely any factors which contribute to the efficiency of the service should be possible of discussion when the service is under discussion, and it cannot be an aid to efficiency for women to be treated with such gross injustice?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is precisely the point. Any hon. Member who has a sufficient amount of ingenuity can drag any subject into any discussion, unless the Chair rules it out of Order. I am afraid I must do so on this occasion.

Mrs. Tate: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, having said what I wanted to say.

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: . I should like to add my voice to those who have spoken for the London boroughs in particular, and for boroughs in general, against the proposals put forward by the Minister of Home Security. If only this matter could be settled now on the basis of 100 per cent.—and, with my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe), I go the whole way in asking for 100 per cent.—it would solve once and for all the many difficulties and complexities and the ill feeling that have arisen in this matter of Air Raid Precautions expenditure during the past two or three years. I happen to have been concerned in these matters for some time after the beginning of the war in the Borough of Hampstead, which I represent, and I would like briefly to state one or two aspects from which we in London and in the borough I represent look at this matter.
In the first place, as has been pointed out, in order to qualify for the supplementary grant at all, three conditions have

to be fulfilled. The general rate levied has to be not less than the average general rate levied in the same year in the same class of area. It has been pointed out that the application of that provision in London will mean that only 12 out of the 28 Metropolitan Boroughs will qualify for the grant. That seems to be enough to condemn the proposals, because it cannot be suggested—and I think it is not suggested—that those boroughs in London which will thus be disqualified from receiving the grant have not been particularly and excessively hit in some cases by air raid damage. The second qualification is that the general rate levied in the area must be at least 6d. above the rate levied for the year 1939–40. If it is imagined that that is the equivalent of the pre-war level, the idea is erroneous. The rate levied for the year 1939–40 is not the proper test of the pre-war level in a matter such as this. In the case of Hampstead, it was estimated that for the year 1939–40 a 3d. rate would be incurred on Air Raid Precautions expenditure, and at least that amount was, in fact, incurred. That was in the year before the war. Therefore, we must go back beyond the year 1939–40 if we are to have anything like a fair basis.
The cost of conceding a full reimbursement to the London boroughs would, I am informed, merely transfer the burden from the ratepayers to the taxpayers to the tune of £1,250,000 a year. It seems fantastic to suggest that we should not now finally settle these difficulties between us, and let the boroughs feel that they are getting a fair and square deal, for the price of such a very small sum. I am informed that in the country as a whole not more than £10,000,000 would be the price of such a concession. I would point out, although hon. Members are aware of it, that the transfer of the balance of the cost from the local rates to national expenditure would not increase the national expenditure, but I submit that it would produce a fairer and broader basis of bearing the burden. It is sometimes supposed that the present basis, estimated at 90 per cent., really gives the London boroughs and boroughs in general a very fair deal. It is not generally recognised that the present financial conditions require 25 per cent. of the assistance to be by way of loan. Furthermore, each authority was first required to utilise all its available resources and to carry a substantial


overdraft as a condition for assistance.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been made by hon. Members who have already spoken in asking the Minister of Home Security to reconsider his decision. I urge him to take this opportunity to settle the matter once and for all. It is a national expenditure. It will by no means relieve the local authorities of any expense or responsibility in the matter; on the contrary, the local authorities will still remain saddled with loan charges on capital expenditure already incurred. They will still remain responsible for unapproved expenditure. There are adequate and ample safeguards to prevent improper expenditure by local authorities. Therefore, I press for a reconsideration of the matter so that, in the London boroughs in particular, we can feel, as we do not feel at present, that we are being propertly treated.

Mr. McEntee: I should like to say a word, not on behalf of the London boroughs, because their views have already been represented, but on behalf of the Outer London authorities. The position there is largely the same. The Outer London authorities have recently formed themselves into an association, largely for the purpose of combating, and, if possible, bringing about alterations in, the present system of payments for all Civil Defence services. These local authorities, which are 51 in number, represent all kinds of political views, but on this matter they are unanimous. They are concerned not only about the present payments, but about the future, because they find that almost every service is rising in cost without any additional compensation which is worth mentioning being paid to them. Conditions in the Outer London areas are somewhat different from those in any other part of the country. Everyone will agree that London has been compelled by orders which have been issued by the Home Office from time to time to create a standard considerably higher than that in the Provinces. I know that some Provincial towns have suffered as much damage as London areas, but, generally speaking, London has been expected to provide more costly and more expensive services than the Provinces. Therefore, London has a right to ask for special consideration.
For air-raid precautions generally, and for the provision of public and domestic shelters, grants to local authorities vary from 65 to 85 per cent., and the difference in places such as my own constituency is very burdensome to the people concerned. We have a very high rate in Waltham stow—something like 15s. 6d. in the pound—and, so far as I can see, we shall not receive any assistance beyond this grant-in-aid, whereas other places which have not been so badly hit financially will apparently receive the grant. We submit that the whole system of grants is bad and requires reconsideration to ensure a fairer distribution of the costs. I think it was in 1937 that a speaker in this House expressed the opinion that a very much higher rate than that prophesied by the Government—they said it would not exceed one penny—would, have to be borne by the local authorities. The speech he made at that time interested me very much. When the Air-Raid Precautions Act was under discussion the speaker, who was in close touch with local authorities, moved an Amendment, providing for the costs involved to be made out of a national fund. He said that the local authorities—I know this is true, because I took part in the discussions at the time—were of the unanimous opinion that these costs should be a national charge. He said it was the view of the local authorities that air-raid precautions were so interlocked with National Defence that it was proper the expenditure should fall upon a national fund in the same way as the costs of the Army, Navy and Air Force. He also mentioned that local authorities were apprehensive that the costs might be greatly in excess of the then Home Secretary's belief that a penny rate would not be exceeded as a result of pressure from the Home Office and other quarters.
The speaker at that time was the present Home Secretary. He was speaking with the very great knowledge he has of London and outer London, and was expressing the unanimous opinion on how this expenditure ought to be met. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is Home Secretary and has powers—I would not say that he has full powers; but certainly he has great influence—I am sure that he will not have forgotten the opinions he held at that time. Let him do something now to implement those opinions so that local authorities may have fairer treatment


than exists to-day. His statements were frilly justified, because the then Home Secretary was proved to be entirely wrong. As a matter of fact, the rates have since been increased to 6½d. in 1940–41, and to 8½d. in 1942–1943. The figures are still rising, and the burden has become very much greater than when that speech was made. Certain services which local authorities are administering under the direction of the Home Office are being paid at a rate of 100 per cent. We had to fight very hard to get it, but some of them are now receiving the full rate. I know, as one who has served on the Emergency Committee which deals with the question of air-raid precautions services generally, that the progressive authorities, which took advantage of the advice given to them and got on with the work, are placed to-day in a very much worse position financially than authorities which delayed, took no notice of Home Office advice and let things slide until ultimately they were compelled to take the action which the better authorities took earlier on the advice of the Home Office. If you have a Government Department advising local authorities in a matter of such great urgency as this, if they act on that advice and show that they are willing to take it, and desire to make the best possible provision for their local inhabitants, they should not be penalised as compared with other authorities. I hope my right hon. Friend will implement what he said in his speech from which I have quoted. I hope something will be done now, because it is urgent, and some local authorities within the Greater London area will be compelled, irrespective of what they desire, because of financial stringency, to lay off doing some of the things which they ought to do and desire to do.

Mr. Naylor: There is a strong feeling among local authorities in London, for whom alone I can speak, at the fact that they are not being reimbursed for all the expenditure to which they have to submit in connection with enemy action. I think it is recognised that the Home Secretary is not altogether responsible for what is happening. Behind him we see the grim, dark figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who undoubtedly ought to be here to listen to the arguments if we are to have any change in the present attitude of the Government. The enemy does not discriminate betwen one municipality or

one part of the country and another. He simply goes where he can. The incidence of that is that some localities have been put to far greater expenditure than others, and yet they are called upon to suffer, to a limited extent it is true, because the enemy has been more attentive to that particular part of the country than to others. War is a national responsibility, and any expenditure arising out of it should equally be a national liability. Many local authorities are subject to a high rate, especially in the poorer districts of London, in spite of the Equalisation of Rates Fund, and on that principle alone the Home Secretary will be justified in putting up a fight when next the matter comes before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Cabinet assembled.
I want next to raise the question of the Service of the Fire Guards, recently known as street fire watchers. Experience shows that it is the willing men and women who are allowed to do all the work and, as this street fire-watching service is voluntary, it means that the more patriotic and sincere men and women are alone giving their services to this most essential work. It is true that during the past 12 months there has been little suffering from enemy attack in many parts of the country, but, while the war is on, we must keep up the fullest possible efficiency, and, just as it has been necessary to apply compulsion in the naval, military and Air Force Services, it ought to be carried through consistently in the case of every service connected with the war. Does not my right hon. Friend think that the time has arrived when this Fire Guard service should be made compulsory? I should be reluctant to put compulsion upon women to go out lire watching, which is a very dangerous service, though I am certain the bulk of the women would be quite willing to take their equal share with the men. All I am asking is that compulsion should be applied to all men who are not otherwise exempt.
The effect of the present system has been not to strengthen the fire-watching organisation, but rather to cause it to slacken off. I had occasion to notice that that is the effect apparently because, as far as London is concerned, the nights have been generally quiet. The duties have to be carried out all the same. The fact that men and women stand aside from common service in the hour of danger causes


those who have volunteered to wonder whether it is worth while. You may have a man in one house volunteering and in the next house a man who has not volunteered. The volunteer says to himself, "Suppose an incendiary bomb falls on the roof of my neighbour's house, is it fair to ask me to put my life in danger to save the house that he refuses to make any attempt to save?" When a feeling like that spreads through any service it means that there will be less enthusiasm, to put it at its lowest, among those who volunteer to do this service.
We have to face the probability that nights in London and elsewhere in the near or distant future will not be so quiet as they have been and that there is evidence to show that the incendiary-bomb policy of the enemy is adding to that class of destruction. Consequently, the work to be done may easily outgrow the number of men and women available to do it. It is true that the A.R.P. permanent service is nearby and that they are ready to do what is required, but they cannot do more than is physically possible in proportion to the numbers engaged in a particular locality. So that when the serious time comes, if it comes, it will mean that we shall not have sufficient fire guards to deal with the situation. I put it to the Home Secretary that from motives of fire protection alone he ought to consider seriously the question of compulsory service. In answer to a Question of mine last week he said that it was likely to be considered either immediately or in the near future. I hope it will be done soon and that we shall have a regulation compelling men of suitable age to do this work. I would put the limit at 65 and not 60 because men at 65 who are free from any disability are as fit as men of 45. Therefore compulsion should apply to all men not otherwise exempt up to 65.
I am not prepared to advocate the compulsion of women for this service, although I would like to pay tribute to those volunteer women who have given their services. In my locality the women have come forward well, and I should not be surprised if they are not in greater numbers than the men. I think, therefore, that we can leave the voluntary system where it is for the women and hope that the Home Secretary will realise the possible dangers that exist owing to

insufficient numbers to deal with any crisis that may arise. One effect of under-staffing in this matter, even when there is no attack by the enemy, is to add to the hours of working and nights of watching of the volunteers. If, therefore, we could add to the numbers by 50 per cent.; as I think is possible, by introducing compulsion it will mean a reduction in the hours of duty of those who are at present volunteers. I hope that early consideration will be given to this important question of compulsion as we do not know what may come in the future. It will be a bad thing for us if the fire guard establishment is not sufficient to cope with all possible dangers.

Mr. Norman Bower: I would like to say a word about Civil Defence expenditure from a rather different angle and to bring forward a case which affects not only local authorities but a large number of private individuals. I have raised this question on several previous occasions both by means of correspondence with the Minister and by means of Parliamentary Questions, because it seemed to me to be a matter of great importance. It affects a large number of people not only in my constituency but, I think, throughout the country. In my constituency it has been a perfect nightmare to the Wembley Council for the last eight months. The position is this. Under Section 29 of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, local authorities are empowered to grant loans to householders for constructing permanent domestic air-raid shelters, About that time a Home Office memorandum—A.R.P. Memorandum No. 14—was circulated. It definitely laid down that domestic shelters could properly be constructed with lime cement mortar. In view of that memorandum a number of my constituents borrowed money from Wembley Council for the construction of shelters, which were built with lime cement mortar. When they were built the local surveyor inspected them and duly passed them as being satisfactory. After some little time had elapsed it turned out that the lime cement mortar was unsuitable. The shelters themselves began to crumble and leak and it was obvious that they would be anything but blast-proof. The public air-raid shelters which had also been constructed of that


material were demolished and reconstructed.
An approach was made to the Minister asking him whether in the circumstances he would remit the repayment of the loans or the interest on the loans and make it unnecessary for the people who had borrowed money to repay it in view of the fact that the shelters were completely unsuitable for the purpose for which they had borrowed the money. They had spent the money on something which was no good to them on the strength of the Home Office Memorandum, which laid down that certain materials, which proved to be useless, might be used. The Minister replied that he was unable to remit the obligation to repay these loans. Although he sympathised with these people and recognised that they had quite a good case, he did not feel that he was able to do anything in the matter. I am under the impression that that was rather for administrative reasons, that he felt that if he were to take any steps of that kind it would land him in all sorts of difficulties and expose him to appeals from people affected in various ways all over the country.
The Minister said the remedy was to start an action against the builders of these shelters and try to get damages for breach of contract. It seems obvious that in the circumstances no action would have the slightest chance of success, because the builders would simply reply that they were authorised to use these materials by the Home Office Memorandum and that in fact they were the only materials available to them at the time, which I think is true. I cannot possibly see that an action for damages for breach of contract would be successful, and as a matter of fact none of the people concerned has instituted an action. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this question very carefully, in order to see whether if he cannot remit the financial obligation, he can at least help these people in some way, such as by giving them a free issue of Morrison shelters, because I am sure he must realise that they have been rather badly treated and that the whole thing is rather unfortunate. If he could see his way to meet them along those lines it would have the effect of relieving their minds and remedying what they feel to be a very serious injustice.

Mr. Silkin: Every speaker in this Debate with the exception of the

last one has really criticised the Government in respect of the financial arrangements for air-raid precautions. The hon. Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) actually went so far as to use the expression "breach of good faith," and while other speakers have not repeated that expression it has been implicit in their remarks. I propose to take a different line. I do so with some diffidence, first as a member of a local authority for some years—and it does require some courage to stand up to the local authorities in this matter—and secondly as a London Member. It is important to remember that this Debate has been entirely concerned with London matters and that the only speakers have been London Members. This is not primarily a London matter. The financial arrangements which apply to London apply also to the rest of the country, and it is significant that not one speaker represented any other part of the country. Indeed, it is well known that this really is a London quarrel. The other authorities throughout the country, while they have argued their case vigorously and energetically, have accepted the position loyally, understanding the situation, and it is only representatives of the Metropolitan boroughs who are still fighting in the last ditch.
What are the charges which have been made? They amount to two. First, there is the point, which was put vigorously by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), that it is unfair to the good authorities who put up shelters quickly and who received the percentage grant that in October, 1940, the Home Secretary should have decided to give a 100 per cent. grant for shelters provided after that date. It is argued that that penalises the good authority and favours the backward authority. I strongly object to the classification of local authorities as good or bad by the test of whether shelters have been provided or not. Let the House consider what was the position in October, 1940. Two things had happened. Some months prior to October France had fallen, with the result that there was a complete change in the vulnerability of different places in the country. So long as France was in the war it was possible to specify certain areas as being vulnerable and others as being less


vulnerable, and the policy had been, quite rightly, to provide shelters as fast as possible in the vulnerable areas and, if necessary, to let the less vulnerable areas go.
With the fall of France the situation changed. All areas became vulnerable and by October, 1940, after the experience of bombing all over the country, it was felt that a change in the shelter policy was necessary. It was essential that shelters should be put up as quickly as possible in what had hitherto been the less vulnerable areas, and in order to ensure that there should be no argument about finance the Home Secretary said, quite rightly, "We will not talk about finance; get on with the shelters." There was another factor, which my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division knows better than anyone else. In his own area there were a number of large strong buildings in the basements of which many people were sheltering. They came to Westminster, they came to the City of London, they came to Kensington, from all over the county, with the result that it became apparent in October, 1940, that the shelter accommodation in certain parts of London was inadequate, and the Home Secretary, again quite rightly, said to the authorities there, "Get on with the pro vision of more shelters." Since those boroughs were providing them for people who were not their own residents it was quite proper that the grant should be 100 per cent.

Sir H. Webbe: I hope the hon. Member will verify his facts in regard to the City of Westminster. The picture he is painting is very far from the true one.

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend may be Member for one of the Divisions of Westminster, but I am a resident there, and the statement I make is true within my own knowledge. People from places outside the area of the borough did congregate in Westminster in large numbers with the result that extra shelter was required in addition to what had been provided. I say that on those two grounds the Home Secretary did the only thing that was possible in saying to the local authorities, in the light of the experience gained from the raids, "Go ahead and provide all the shelters that are necessary and don't trouble about arguing the cost. We will pay 100 per cent." But that does not

give rise to a claim on the part of local authorities who had already provided shelters that this decision should be retrospective. I can see no case for that proposition.
The other case that is made against the Home Secretary is that there was a sort of understanding that the cost to the local authorities of air-raid precautions would not exceed a rate of 1d. or 2d., or some such small figure, and that in fact it is now 6d. or 7d. In some cases it may be 8d. and in one extreme case it is 9d. The speeches made by my right hon. Friend five years ago were quoted against him. They were made in circumstances very different from those of to-day. Let us remember the atmosphere in which those discussions took place in 1937. We were at peace. Most people regarded war as a somewhat remote contingency, even at that time. When we were talking about the possibility of war and the need to provide air-raid precautions we were talking of something which seemed very distant to us. It was very easy in those leisurely days to give a half assurance to the local authorities that the rate would not exceed 1d. or 2d., as the case might be, in providing the kind of Civil Defence which was required at that time. Moreover, the local authorities were being required to incur an additional burden, over and above that which they bore in providing the social services for which they were responsible. It was quite appropriate to endeavour to argue, and it was arguable, that in those circumstances the State should provide 100 per cent. of the cost of air-raid precautions. Frankly, I have never subscribed to that view, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). It is unsound for the State to provide the money and for the local authority to carry out the service without any financial responsibility. When my right hon. Friend was arguing for 100 per cent. grant in those days he was not on sound ground. He is on much sounder ground to-day.

Mr. Brooke: Of course, the House accepts at once the hon. Member's assurance that he did not believe in the 100 per cent. grant, but he did vote in favour of an Amendment on the Second Reading, which stipulated that the grant should be 100 per cent.

Mr. Silkin: I am not speaking of my right hon. Friend, but of myself.

Mr. Brooke: I am also referring to the hon. Member.

Mr. Silkin: I always thought it was unsound. I voted with my party just as the hon. Member voted with his, whatever our personal views may have been, and I do not think that these things should be brought up against us. I say it was an unsound principle that we voted for. Even if I voted for it, I say frankly that it is unsound to ask the State to bear the whole of the cost and the local authority to be concerned only with the spending of the money. If that principle is conceded, where are we? In fact, the State is bearing from 90 per cent. to 97½ per cent. of the cost of air-raid precautions in the localities, taking into account that which is provided by the Home Office and the Ministry of Health. If we have to have a position in which local authorities have to accept some financial responsibility I fail to see how they can accept less responsibility than the amount which they now have. It is said that the latest financial arrangements are unfair and burdensome because the Home Secretary is providing only half the excess rate beyond 6d. incurred by local authorities, and that it is subject to two conditions which have the effect of reducing very largely the number of local authorities who will benefit by this provision and the amounts by which they will benefit.
What are these conditions? The first is that the local authority, before it gets an additional grant, shall have a rate exceeding the average rate. What is wrong with that? When you boil it down you have to remember that the rate is imposed on the individual. Take, as an example, an individual in Lewisham, the area which was quoted with a rate slightly below the average. Why should that ratepayer get an additional contribution from the Exchequer when his rate is below the average for similar local authorities? It is a reasonable condition to impose to ensure that the grant is not given to the wrong people. I believe that that is the religion of the hon. Member for West Lewisham on this matter, namely, the means test, as an assurance that money is not given to people who do not need it. The other condition is that the local authority must not have increased its rate by less than 6d. There again, is it not a reasonable condition to apply that, until there is a

heavy burden on the local ratepayer, he should not get a grant out of public money? I feel that the conditions which were laid down in the White Paper for the provision of supplemental grants were reasonable and fair and were calculated to ensure that people were not given grants out of public money unless they really needed them.
The Minister of Health has had a hand in this matter. Apart altogether from air-raid precautions, local authorities can come along. Their finances have been in a bad way, arising from factors such as evacuation, destruction of rateable values, loss of business, and so on, and there have been substantial grants to the local authorities. Take London alone; I think that every borough council in London has had a grant from the Ministry of Health. It is said that 75 per cent. only is grant and 25 per cent. is loan. That may be, but there is no interest on the loan. I am sure that the local authorities will have an argument after the war regarding the refund of that loan, but they have no argument to-day. They are not being asked to refund it to-day, and it seems unreasonable to say that because at some time a portion of this loan may be called upon to be refunded, therefore the Home Secretary has to be asked today to make an additional grant. Beyond all this, have not the circumstances completely changed since 1937, when we discussed this matter? I said at that time that local authorities had to carry out the services for which they were responsible on a peace-time basis. In my opinion, they were extending those services because that was the trend of events, and it was right that they should have an argument about any additional burden which they were called upon to incur.
What is the position since the war? I submit that the whole of municipal finance has gone into the melting pot. Conditions are entirely different to-day. Take some of the services for which the local authorities were responsible. Highways; there are no highways being repaired to-day, but they were a substantial part of the expenditure of a local authority. The City of Westminster used to spend about £60,000 on highways, but they are spending nothing to-day. Housing; I have been responsible in my time for spending a lot of money on houses, but not a penny is being spent to-day.

Mr. McEntee: My hon. Friend said had it not been for the discontinuance of those services the local authorities ought to have had a reduction in rates. Is he not aware that most of them have had to increase their rates, many of them exceeding 6d.?

Mr. Silkin: If nothing else had happened, there might have been a reduction in the rates. The point I am making is the change in the incidence of expenditure on local authorities. Take education. I am sorry to say that we are spending less on education to-day than we were before the war. The fact remains that the expenditure is less, and the local authorities have been relieved to the extent of that expenditure. Public assistance is another factor; far less is spent upon it than before the war. Street lighting; there is little street lighting. There has been a complete change in the incidence of expenditure. I say therefore that it was quite appropriate that there should be a revision of the relationships between the Exchequer and the local authorities. The only point on which I disagree with him is that while he assumes that a revision necessarily means more grant from the Exchequer to the local authorities, or a greater percentage grant, I say that a revision may cut both ways. You have to take all the new circumstances into account and deal with the situation, not in the light of conditions in 1937 but in the light of conditions in 1941 and 1942.

Mr. Brooke: Do I understand the hon. Member to argue that a time when the local rates in London have increased by an average of 1s. in the £, as they have between 1939 and 1942, is the time when there might well be a revision down wards of Government grants to assist them?

Mr. Silkin: No, I say that the circumstances of 1941 are quite different from the circumstances of 1937, and that one is justified in looking at the matter afresh. I am not prejudging, for the purpose of my argument, what would be the result of the revision. What I do say is that it does not necessarily follow, as my hon. Friend argued, that because you have a revision it must be a revision in the direction of more favourable terms to the local authority. It may mean nothing of the kind; the circumstances may justify less favourable terms. In fact, of course, the

terms under this revision have been slightly more favourable than they were before it. Although one can point to anomalies and argue about one particular borough or another, on the whole, so far as is possible in these days, rough justice has been done, and I do not think that in their heart of hearts the local authorities are really as dissatisfied as they try to make out.
Now I would like to say a word about some of the services which the Minister of Home Security is carrying on and which, in the heat and passion of this discussion, seem to have been overlooked. He has been fortunate in having had experience of heavy bombing, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what alterations have been made since, say, a year ago in regard to a number of matters. I think there was general criticism a year ago to the effect that there were still far too many full-time wardens; the figures given in the Select Committee's Reports last year showed that at that time something like £40,000,000 was spent in one year on the employment of full-time personnel. Since then, of course, the House has had no figures, and I would be interested to know whether there has been a reduction in the number of full-time wardens. Personally I see no reason why any full-time wardens should be employed at all. I think the whole of the work could be carried on with part-time service, especially now that my right hon. Friend has the power to direct people to Civil Defence services.
I should like to ask him also about the National Fire Service. I believe that the result of nationalisation has been to increase efficiency, and, after all, that is the primary consideration. There were considerable difficulties in the past about mutual assistance; fire brigades did not arrive in time, or were not properly directed, and so on, and the new service which has been created and which has won universal praise will, I am sure, be more efficient. I would, however, like to know what is its cost as compared with the aggregate cost before nationalisation. Has the cost gone up or down? I think that that is not a bad test for judging efficiency. If the cost is greater there is an assumption—it is only an assumption, of course—that the service is less efficient. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend may be able to point out that the service


at the time it was taken over was understaffed and that it was necessary to increase the personnel. I would like to know the present position regarding costs.
There is one question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. The House will remember that considerable interest has been taken in the idle hours of Civil Defence workers; there is a general feeling that persons engaged in stand-by duties should, as far as possible, be employed on war work, and I believe that a start has been made in the National Fire Service. From my own knowledge and observation, however, it is quite clear that that is a very small start and that there must be a very large number of people hanging about on stand-by duties who are not engaged on war service. I would like to know whether my right hon. Friend intends to take or is taking steps to increase the number of men who will be employed in war service, and what is the present position.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) referred to the fire guards. I do not wholly agree with him; it is not a voluntary service in London to-day, it is a compulsory service, but there are still a number of difficulties. One is a lack of mobility. A person who is compulsorily called up for fire-guard service can be employed in his own premises or in the immediate vicinity, but he cannot be sent from one place to another. As my right hon. Friend knows, the problem is very grave in certain parts of London and other large cities; in the business areas there is a shortage of personnel which is sometimes made up from other Civil Defence services. I think the time has now arrived when, contrary to the views of my hon. Friend, we ought to recruit women. Now that women are employed in the Fighting Services, are compulsorily recruited for factories, and are engaged in important and dangerous work, I see no reason why in a time of dire need we should not take the further step of recruiting women for the fire-guard service. I believe that the question is under consideration by the Home Department, which I believe is rather standing shivering on the brink. I invite them to take the plunge. I think it will meet with universal approval, even more from the women themselves than from the men,

who are always a bit romantic about what women can do and who always tend to under-estimate their capabilities and courage.
There is at the present time a wasteful use of the personnel of the fire guard. They are not trained; I have known cases of men who were fire watching in a particular building who did not know their way about the building, and who in case of need would not be able to find their way to the necessary equipment. I think that the time has now come when there should be compulsory training of persons engaged in fire watching in order that they should know their way about, where the equipment is, and how to use that equipment. To this end it may be necessary to organise the whole of the service on a local basis, having one person in charge of a particular area and ensuring that everyone knows his job and is properly trained for it in time of need.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend something about the rescue service, which, with the Fire Service, I regard as the two most important Civil Defence services. Is there now any shortage of personnel in the rescue service? When the Select Committee investigated this over a year ago, they found that there was a shortage, and I would like to know whether it has now been overcome. I know that there has been a certain addition to the service by the training of first-aid parties to carry out light rescue work, but I do not know whether, with that addition, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that he has the personnel he may need in time of trouble. Is he doing anything about a mobile reserve of rescue workers, which was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee which was not accepted at that time? We always find that recommendations in due course are accepted, and I would like to know whether the time has now come to accept the recommendation regarding the mobile reserve. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied as to the condition of training of the men in the rescue service to-day? They have had a rather lean time lately and it is conceivable that they may have got out of training.
I should also like to ask him just a little about the decontamination centres. My right hon. Friend is always warning us to carry our gas masks against the use of gas by the enemy, but is he, so to


speak, carrying his gas mask? Is he ready for it—I do not mean literally—in the various centres of population? Supposing we had gas, is he ready with decontamination squads? Is he ready with all the things that science has taught us are necessary in case of enemy attack by gas? Is there training going on in the use of means of decontamination? I would ask quite generally, having had a lull which looks like coming to an end, has he really profited by the experience of the raids over this country which lasted in an intensified form for about six months? Have he and his Department really sat down and said, "What are the lessons we have learned; what are the things we should avoid and what are the things we should do?" and has he been able to do them?
In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a statement which was made by the Select Committee a year ago about the Civil Defence Service. We said that in the beginning they were an unknown quantity, and it was doubtful whether they would be efficient in time of need. The Select Committee went on to say that since then the Civil Defence service had been put to the test of experience, that their need had been proved, their efficiency demonstrated and that their courage had won the admiration of the world. I believe these statements are true to-day. I am concerned, whatever may be the arguments that have been evolved in the Debate to-day, that they should weigh as nothing compared with the need to carry on this service in the most efficient way, and I am quite sure that whether local authorities are really satisfied or dissatisfied, nothing will happen which will prevent them from carrying out their duties with loyalty, with devotion, and with efficiency.

General Sir George Jeffreys: May I in the first place congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very greatly improved organisation, as it appears to me, and the very greatly improved working of that organisation during the last year? In some respects I believe that further improvement is still possible. I would like to refer particularly to the regional organisation. A year ago that machine, the regional organisation, was, as it were, in process of being run in. It was working stiffly, with

a good many creaks and groans, but it has steadily improved, and its personnel which, if I may say so, had not really settled down a year ago is also much improved, and is working far more smoothly. There is, of course, the difficulty, or at any rate there was in the early stages, of getting suitable personnel for these regional staffs. I think my right hon. Friend, and most others who have had any experience of local government, will agree that it is highly desirable that at least senior members of the regional staffs should have had some experience of local government. And it does not necessarily follow that experience of local government in, shall we say, a large rural county would be the kind of experience required to deal with the affairs of a large industrial city, and vice versa. But I think that acquaintance with local government is very desirable, and indeed almost necessary, in the senior members of regional staffs.
Then there is the question of the class of person who is employed on these regional staffs. Very often it tends to be, and it has been in the past, a civil servant. I am not absolutely certain that a civil servant—it is natural they should have got there when these regional organisations were set up—is necessarily the best kind of official on a regional staff to deal with matters of local government, and especially to deal with a new matter like this matter of Civil Defence and air-raid precautions, because I think that their instinct and training are rather to impose delay and avoid giving decisions. In these regional organisations and the staffs of scheme-making authorities quick decisions and the quick getting down to work are alike extremely necessary. I would suggest that the true function, the first function at any rate, of members of regional staffs, is to help not only their own Regional Commissioners and colleagues but also to help those subordinate local authorities with whom the region has to deal. It used to be a rule of staffs in the Army, and for all I know it is so now, that the function of a staff officer was not only to intervene and convey orders and check faults but to help, not only his chief, but also the subordinate commanders with whom his chief had to deal. I suggest that that function should be performed by regional staffs. It is possible that at the beginning at any rate some of the regional


staffs, when being formed, insufficiently appreciated that function. As I began by saying, all this is improving. There has been a great improvement in the working of regional staffs, and in the working also of scheme-making authorities in dealing with regional staffs.
I would suggest that some wider discretion and some power to approve expenditure without reference to the Ministry might be given. If this were done, I do not believe it would result in much higher expenditure. It would result, I think, in quicker action, in the elimination of what seems to be at the present moment avoidable delays, and in greater efficiency. At present the region has to refer too much to the Ministry, it seems to me. Incidentally the supply of the necessary forms for making the numerous returns called for by regions, presumably frequently at the instance of the Ministry, causes very considerable difficulties. These forms and these returns might well be reduced. I would suggest that regions should also be given a wider discretion to sanction matters of general policy, that is, apart from expenditure. While I would advocate wider powers to regions both on matters of policy and for approval of expenditure, I would also approve that wider powers should be given to scheme-making authorities. After all, these are responsible local authorities. They are not minor local authorities; they are county councils and county borough councils, with skilled staffs. Surely within limits, which I suggest might be fairly generous limits, they might be given more discretion to spend money? We all remember in the past certain cases of local authorities which went very much beyond the powers existing in those days and had to be restrained in their spending powers. I suggest that the converse might very well be the case in that if there are any scheme-making authorities which in the opinion of the Ministry are extravagant and not responsible in matters of expenditure, such powers might be withheld from them, but I suggest that the majority of the scheme-making authorities might be given wider powers, within definite limits, to spend money. I do not believe that this would result in any extravagance, but I think it would result in work being done much more quickly and with very much less correspondence before it was sanctioned.
I would refer for one moment to the relations of A.R.P. personnel with the Home Guard. There was undoubtedly at one time a certain amount of difference of opinion, and even in some cases of friction, between wardens and the Home Guard, and other members of the A.R.P. services. In my own county we had very little, but I know that there was friction in some parts of the country. The position, I think, has very much improved. I do not know to what extent other places have adopted an arrangement which was reached very early in my own county, by which the A.R.P. first-aid organisation is to a large extent placed at the disposal of the Home Guard, which has no real first-aid organisation of its own. That is a most satisfactory arrangement, and I believe that it would be to the general advantage for it to prevail—as possibly it may do already—all over the country. Then, there is the question of whether wardens should be members of the Home Guard. I suggest that there is no difficulty about that if there is good-will and understanding on the part of both the Home Guard and the Wardens' service. The wardens' duties would very likely occur principally before the Home Guard was called upon to function; and if wardens were placed in category 2 of the Home Guard, so that they would not be called up at the very outset, I believe that they could perform both functions.
Then there is the question of the Fire Guard. I am not certain whether it is the case all over the kingdom, but in many places the Fire Guard is independent of the scheme-making authority. I am not sure that that is logical, because the head officers of the Fire Guard have to be wardens, and there is a very close relationship between the two services. I think that the Fire Guard, as a matter of general organisation, should be under the direction of the scheme-making authority. That arrangement has been suggested in the region in which I reside, and the suggestion has been accepted in principle by the scheme-making authority of my county. My intention was to refer chiefly to the regional organisation and its relations with the scheme-making authorities. I hope my right hon. Friend will trust a little further both the regions which he has created—and which are certainly more efficient now than they were in the earlier stages—and the scheme-making authorities. I would also like to pay tribute—


certainly so far as my own county is concerned, and I believe I should include the rest of the country—to the voluntary part-time workers. They have done excellent work; some of them devote long hours to their duty and are very efficient. In my county we have always had a very high proportion of voluntary workers; and, at the request of the Ministry, we have now further reduced our already small body of full-time workers, and I do not think that anybody regrets that reduction. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to the points I have raised.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I had been led to believe that this was to be a Debate in which great and bitter indignation would be expressed on a large scale against my financial relationships with the local authorities. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) did his best to work himself up into a state of indignation and protest; but, as the protest demonstration, on account of the number of Members attending the Debate, was very small, I admit that he had great difficulty in working up the right atmosphere of indignation. Sometimes it is said that some particular incident has knocked the stuffing out of a Debate. In this Debate, so far as the establishment of any case against the relations of the Ministry with the local authorities is concerned, there has never been any stuffing at all. But perhaps I shall be forgiven by my hon. Friends if I come back to that matter after dealing with particular points which have been raised. I am sorry that, owing to the need for having a little food, I did not hear all the speeches, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to give me a summary of those that I missed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford (Mrs. Adamson) supported the hon. Members for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) and West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), and went on to deal with an additional grievance, taking the view that the boroughs and county districts of extra-London had been treated worse than the Metropolitant boroughs. I will be perfectly frank. I cannot go into the full financial details as they affect each of these local authorities. As my hon.

Friend will appreciate, the circumstances of municipal finance vary from district to district, so that it becomes difficult to generalise. I would not, on the knowledge at my disposal, dispute that things may have worked out differently as between districts in extra-London and in the County of London. It is probable that some kind of anomalies, too, may be found among the Metropolitan boroughs. The difficulty is that every municipality is in some way different from every other. That is almost a universal rule. Nevertheless, the State in coming to an agreement with the local authorities has to adopt some sort of formula. Some formulae are more difficult to understand than others. When the general formula is adopted, it is absolutely certain to apply somewhere or other in a way that you did not expect. I imagine that is the position with the Dartford authority.
I am only dealing with the point within the limitation of the possibility of no absolute equality as between one authority and another, even if we have complete equality of policy. But I am not admitting, and my hon. Friend will not be surprised, the general allegation with which she associated herself that the Government had been generally unjust to the local authorities. This formula is one of the simplest I have ever seen in relation to State grants-in-aid to local authorities. If my hon. Friend wants a really difficult one to understand—I think that I now understand it but it has taken me years to do so—I would refer her to some of the provisions of the legislation of 1929 in which I think she would find the formula very much more difficult. I have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said, and I am bound to say that I always admire the way she stands up for the interests of her constituency and her constituents. It is an old saying that the customer is always right. The constituents of the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford can be satisfied with their Member of Parliament that in this respect, she takes the view that her constituents are always right. She is always ready to champion their interests and their causes, which range from pensions to municipal grants-in-aid, and I am not sure whether, if she had a case of murder and a constituent was the murderer and the murdered was not a constituent, she would not champion the cause of the murderer with all the fidelity with which


she champions the cases of her constituents.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) is not in her place, and I think I will wait, as I think it would be courteous, until she returns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hampstead (Flight-Lieutenant Challen) pursued the general argument about the financial arrangements between the State, and perhaps he also will forgive me if I deal with his point in the general reply which I will make on the financial aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) said that the local authorities in the London region had been compelled to evolve a higher standard of efficiency than they were expected to provide before the war. I do not know that I would say that. But I think I can speak for all local authorities, certainly in the County of London.

Mr. McEntee: What I said rather was that they had been compelled by circumstances and by the Home Office to provide a higher standard of efficiency than was generally applicable to the provinces.

Mr. Morrison: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I do not know that I would say that as compared with the great cities of the provinces like Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and so on. I would be inclined to say that we have required from them as high a standard of efficiency. I admit that when you get to the smaller towns in what were called the non-vulnerable areas my hon. Friend's point would be a sound one and the degree of expenditure there would be less. London has always differed in this respect. I am never sure whether it is justifiable or not, but what differentiates London in Civil Defence expenditure from the rest of the country in the main, apart from the enormous magnitude of the task, is the very high proportion of full-time Civil Defence personnel as compared with part-timers. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) raised a point on that. I find it difficult myself to make up my mind whether that very disproportionate situation as regards London compared with the provinces is justifiable. I am not sure that it is. It is reasonable that the proportion of full-timers in London should be higher than in the provinces, particularly outside the great cities, but I am not sure that London has done as much in part-time service as ought to have

been done. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham is right when he refers to the wardens' service; I certainly would be happier if there were a larger proportion of part-timers. The social circumstances of London are different. People work considerable distances from where they live. In some of the poorest of the Metropolitan boroughs there is not that mixed population that helps things in some of the provincial cities, and that has to be taken into account. Nevertheless, I hope that my native city is not falling short in the value of civic and public service. It is profoundly important to the health of the community and the vigour of our civic life.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) that the part-time Civil Defence personnel deserve the thanks and the praise of the country just as much as the full-timers. Both of them deserve it certainly, but I think the proportion of part-timers we have in many of the provincial areas is a great credit to the public authorities of those areas and to the civic spirit of their people. I am glad to pay this tribute to the part-timers. I would like to mention Wales. Wales was an area of great depression in the years before the war, of great poverty and unemployment. If there was a place where they might have been tempted at the outbreak of war to put everybody into full-time Civil Defence jobs as a means of easing their burden of unemployment that place was Wales. It is greatly to the credit of the civic and public spirit of Wales. I do not want to be tied down by this, but I am inclined to think that the highest or almost the highest proportion of part-timers and the lowest proportion of full-timers are to be found in Wales, including that depressed area of South Wales. It is a great tribute to the public and community spirit of the Principality, and to none more than to the people of South Wales that that should be so.

Mr. McEntee: And there is not a Welshman present to hear this.

Mr. Morrison: It is a great pity that I have missed all the cheers of the Welsh, but I hope that they will get to know about it. The other financial point the hon. Member for West Walthamstow raised will also come into the general answer that I will give. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome has now returned


to the House and I would like to mention one or two points with which she dealt. I am bound to say, in the first place, that she put herself in a difficulty as far as agreeing with the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster and the hon. Member for West Lewisham is concerned. She agreed with all their arguments for bigger grants and she associated herself with all their painful and unpleasant reminders of my former existence in another capacity and of the arguments I then used. She associated herself with the whole of their case for the principle of a 100 per cent. grant. But when the Bill of 1937 was before the House I moved an Amendment from the bench opposite in favour of the 100 per cent. principle, and on the Financial Resolution I moved an Amendment which read the other way round, which meant this way round, as these things have to be on Financial Resolutions. It meant that if the rate became more than 2d. in the £ on Civil Defence the State should pay for that. I have not seen what my hon. Friend did on the Financial Resolution, but I find that in the Division list she voted against my Amendment on the Second Reading, which was in favour of 100 per cent., and she voted for the Second Reading of the Bill which provided for a financial provision for local authorities less than I have given. And yet she associates herself with the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield and the hon. Member for West Lewisham. I am really surprised that she should regard so lightly her past record in this House on matters of this kind. My hon. Friend raised a number of points with regard to women, but I do not think that here there is any field in which one can settle general policy on the relations between men and women as to their respective pay. It is true there is a difference and that there always has been a difference in the rates of pay between men and women in Civil Defence, as, indeed, there is in the Armed Forces and the Women's Auxiliary Services. But it would not be in Order to argue the general principle.

Mrs. Tate: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt remembers that we were promised the rate for the job at the beginning of this war?

Mr. Morrison: I do not recollect the details.

Mrs. Tate: I do.

Mr. Morrison: I do not want to be drawn out of my depth, but it is the general policy of the State and industry that there are certain broad levels of wages for men and women. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, but there must be a relationship between the relativities in Civil Defence and the Armed Services. The principle adopted by the Government at the beginning of the war was that the rate of pay for women should be approximately two-thirds of the rate of pay for men.

Mrs. Tate: Shame.

Mr. Morrison: The conditions of service are different. Women work shorter hours, although I do not say that is conclusive or that it is unassociated with general economic policy in these matters, but it is to my credit that the last time wages were revised I struggled to get a greater increase for women than men. The result was that women's wages went up by 5s. and men's by 4s. Had the proportion been maintained I think women's wages would have gone up to somewhere about 3s. 6d. Although I have not got to the proper line which my hon. Friend would like me to reach, I shall continue to do the best I can—

Mrs. Tate: The right hon. Gentleman went up in my estimation.

Mr. Morrison: I am glad that that should be so. As to the point on which my hon. Friend was ruled to Order, I do not propose to go into it and get myself ruled out of Order. It is not good to get ruled out of Order, and I do not think it is right to enter into an issue which is purely the business of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. I do not think one Minister should do the business of another, especially when it is troublesome.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) raised certain matters about Fire Guards. The principle of compulsion, as he knows, has been applied to the fire guard services for a long time now, but there are certain holes in the scheme of compulsion which I think require attention. I have recently given attention to these imperfections and holes in the plan of compulsion with


regard to male Fire Guards, decisions have been reached and will shortly be implemented and made public. They will, I think, make compulsion rather more universal than it has been. With regard to the old existing voluntary fire parties, to whom I am exceedingly grateful for the public spirit they have shown, I am afraid I must bring them within the compulsory plan. The man-power problem is becoming more and more difficult, less in the case of part-timers than of full-timers, and we must have the most complete and universal powers in order to make the whole thing fit. Nevertheless, it is my wish that local authorities should take into account the rather special character of the original voluntary fire parties and study their convenience so far as that can be done.
As regards compulsion to be applied to women—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham—that, as he said, has been under consideration, and the Government will quite shortly reach a decision about it. Certain consultations are taking place, and I would only say this by way of intimation. We must have this fire guard service adequate in numbers and efficiency. The Home Guard is a competitive factor, and there are many other competitive factors for part-time service. It is not unlikely that the enemy, in future raids, will have increased resort to fire attack. He has already done so, and fire is the biggest single danger—bigger than high explosives, I think—in enemy attack. Once it gets going it spreads speedily and adds enormously to the difficulties of the National Fire Service. As I have said, the problem of man-power is very very severe, and I am certain that if His Majesty's Government, in the light of all the facts, come to the conclusion that we cannot get through without applying compulsion to women, our women, who have a fine record in the war, will not be sticky or troublesome about the application of that principle. We shall be as careful as possible in the application of the principle of compulsion, if we do apply it, and I am sure our women will not be too sympathetic towards any sectional or other interest which may be tempted to be difficult or awkward. The country feels, and has felt for a long time, that the needs of the nation come in front of the needs of any one of us or of any section of the community. That point is

being looked at, and will have to be looked at, in view of the great difficulties of the man-power situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Bower) returned to the charge, if I may say so, on the admitted troubles of some of his constituents with regard to domestic shelter for which they have made a contract with a builder and arranged a loan with the local authority. The burden of my hon. Friend's complaint is that the Ministry of Home Security issued one of its limited number of circulars in which it gave advice about shelter construction. He believes that the advice we gave was technically wrong and, therefore, that we are responsible for the troubles of his constituents. Well, I cannot admit that. It would not be right that I should admit it, and it would not be expedient to admit that the Ministry of Home Security gave the wrong advice. I have read the circular very carefully myself, and it does not justify the charge that it was because of its directions that some of the imperfections he has pointed out were caused. Moreover, if I tried to deal with the problem on the basis of trying to segregate certain types of shelter built with what is called lime mortar—of which, by the way, we did not say they were to be built—we should have trouble in finding out which were of those character, which were the result of the builder reading our circular and which were the result of the builder being incompetent. Moreover, even lime mortar is not necessarily bad; it depends upon circumstances and the time of the year. Lime mortar used in South Wales has stood up to an enormous amount of enemy attack. So it is not conclusive. The trouble is that if I get into this field every citizen in the country who has something the matter with his shelter, or has been robbed by his builder, will come to me for relief. I have not the staff to do the checking, and it would be a misuse of public funds. Therefore, it is with great regret—and I have more than the average amount of sympathy with the suburban areas—that I cannot take responsibility for something that is really a question between the individual citizen and the builder he employed.
Neither the Ministry nor the local authority undertook to vet and approve building plans from the point of view of efficiency or value for money. It is the considered policy of the Ministry not to


apply retrospectively financial assistance in the matter of shelters. However, I am sympathetic about this matter, as far as I can do anything and as long as I do not get myself on to the slippery slope that will end in disaster a long way down the slope. I think it would be fair and prudent that I should relax the policy of aversion from retrospective action in this matter to the extent of being willing to issue, as far as is practicable, and only as far as is practicable—for there are many claims for table shelters all over the country—what is known as a Morrison or an Anderson shelter free of charge to the owners of defective private shelters who, having built those shelters when they were ineligible for free shelters, are now, by reason of the raising of the income limit from £250 to £350 per annum, so eligible. Alternatively, where the defective shelter can be repaired at a cost which is less than that of a Morrison shelter, repairs can be effected by the local authority, subject to the availability of the necessary labour, which, as the hon. Member will realise, is a limiting factor. This form of relief, I contemplate, should be given in all circumstances where the local authority certifies the private shelter to be unusable, irrespective of the cause of the defective condition of the shelter. Further than this, I am afraid I cannot go, but that far I will go, and I hope that it will, in so far as is possible, meet the cases of people who have been burdened with imperfect shelters and who could not get free the Morrison or Anderson shelters originally because of their income limit, but who would have got them if the income limit had then been what it now is. I think that will help the people whose financial circumstances are the hardest and who are in this particular difficulty.
I come now to the points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield. The hon. Member for Peckham asked whether there are too many full-time wardens. I can only say that we came to a general decision to reduce the Civil Defence general services by roughly one-third. There were elements of risk about this, but I thought it was right to take the risk in the interests of getting away, in part, from the defensive to the offensive spirit in the conduct of the war, as far as my

little contribution could make that possible. In the London region there have been substantial releases of wardens. Naturally, the actual release, after the approval of the release, depends to some extent on the speed with which the Ministry of Labour can place the released personnel, because we agreed, as I think the House considers right, that we would not release a person until the Ministry of Labour could place him, otherwise people would be simply out of work for a period, and that would have been very unfair on people who have rendered brave and courageous service to the country. Therefore, the speed of release and absorption depends upon the organisation of the Ministry of Labour and the difficulties they have to meet, and not, in the main, on the Ministry of Home Security. With regard to the rescue services, the approved plan was to release rescue parties and first-aid parties in large numbers and to divert the whole-time wardens in some degree to light rescue work. This merging and interlocking of services has been pursued by the Ministry for some time, and I think it was approved of by the Select Committee on National Expenditure; it has been pursued with all possible vigour.
The hon. Member referred to the National Fire Service and wanted to know whether the cost was up or down. It is up, and it is up by a fairly substantial figure, as I think it was bound to be. There are a number of factors involved. One is that the personnel, which was insufficient at the time we set up the National Fire Service, has been increased, although since then I have intimated that I will try—because I cannot be sure—to give up one-sixth of the National Fire Service personnel. However, at the time we took over the Fire Brigades the personnel was inadequate, and whether or not the services remained under the local authorities, there had to be increases in personnel. This has caused increases in expenditure. The officers have undertaken greater responsibility in which the N.F.S. serves larger areas, and we have had to create a whole chain of officers which hardly existed before in the local authority brigades, except perhaps that of the London County Council; and the creation of that chain of officers has meant the paying of a chain of salaries to them. Most of the areas and numbers they command are much greater than they were in


the case of the bulk of the local authorities' services before. This is a further factor in the increased cost.
A good deal of building and adaptation work has had to be done. Other factors, such as additional pipes, hose, improvements of various sorts, and the acquisition of property have increased the cost of the service. But believe me, we are being as economical as we possibly can, and I honestly think that at the present time, as a result of that earnest work—the anniversary will be in a few days' time, in the month of August—we can say that' the efficiency of the British Fire Service is materially greater than it was a year ago. I think that is the general impression of hon. Members. The mayors of local authorities in whose areas there have been raids have been good enough to send us complimentary letters on the good work the Fire Service have done. But I am not satisfied with the National Fire Service yet. It is not where it ought to be by any means. There will have to be much training, much exercising, much mobilisation work, and so on, before the Fire Service is where I want it to be; but it is much better than it was, and we will go on improving, with the support of the House and, I know, with the support of the admirable rank and file of the Fire Service, to make it as nearly perfect as we can.

Mr. Gallacher: Are good results being obtained from the Training College?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; very good. We invited hon. Members to visit it and quite a number did so; and if other hon. Members would like to do so, I or the Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to make arrangements. My hon. Friend has mentioned the idle hours in Civil Defence. Primarily, the Civil Defence services, including the Fire Service, are services which deal with the consequences and effects of enemy attacks. Whatever we do, we must never allow those services to feel that Civil Defence is a subsidiary occupation and that what is called productive work—although it is not always productive, by the way—comes first and the Fire Service and Civil Defence second. There is a real danger of that through some of the rather irresponsible propaganda that has been carried on; and I very much regret to say that the Fire Brigades Union has been conducive to

creating some of that atmosphere, even though it may not have meant to do so. The House would never forgive me if, in pursuit of productive work, I put fire fighting and Civil Defence second and these odds and ends of employment first. Whatever the propagandists may say, whether or not they get their propaganda into the columns of the popular Press, or even achieve the amazing success, on which I compliment them, of getting on to the leader page of "The Times," as they did yesterday, first-class direct propaganda of that kind—whether or not "The Times" knew it, I do not know—whatever the propagandists say, I must keep that point of principle in mind.
We have done two or three things First, we have laid down the policy that Civil Defence personnel can be used by the local authorities for other purposes connected with the successful prosecution of the war or the maintenance of the life of the community. The local authorities are gradually finding ways in which the off-active-duty time but on-duty time can be, in part, so used. We even contemplate that arrangements will be made with private employers for temporary releases. There is also the constructional work to be done within the Civil Defence service itself, in amenities, in buildings, and depots, and in the Fire Service in many directions.
It takes a little time to get this work going, and I confess that when we have done this we shall not have enough to occupy them all the time. I have raised the matter with the Supply Departments. I have been raising it all the time, and the House need not be under the impression that I have acted only under pressure from this organisation and from newspaper articles and speeches. It is obvious that one does not want them to be idle. It is bad for their souls—it would be bad for any of us. I want to see them usefully employed, and it is to the credit of the men that that is their wish. We went to the Supply Departments and asked them whether they could work in with us so that depots and fire stations could be used to produce necessities of war. There was no lack of good will on the part of the Supply Departments, but the fact remains, that it is easier to talk about it than to do it, except for certain limited lines of production. If the work requires the use of machine


tools, machine setters and technical supervision, then I think the House will appreciate that if these elements are taken away from the industries engaged on munitions of war large-scale production will be interrupted without a corresponding or greater amount of work being done in the fire stations and depots.
That is what the Supply Departments told me, and I do not think I can effectively contradict them. I have asked them as far as is possible to find some suitable products which we can make without interfering with industrial production, and we will do all we can in that respect. It is a little bit hard that attacks should be made on the Minister of Home Security in this respect, when obviously the problem must be solved by the Production Departments. The House must remember that they too have their difficulties in the matter. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no lack of good will, but it is important that the propaganda should not get out of all proportion. Otherwise it can create a feeling among the personnel, in the Fire Service for example, that they are not doing a job which is worthwhile, that they are not much use and that they are living on the State without doing anything. I want the firemen to keep their self-respect and their spirit, and therefore I deprecate propaganda which is unbalanced and goes somewhat too far. There must be a lot of work done in the Fire Service, in training, exercising and so forth. Indeed, precisely the same problem exists in the case of anti-aircraft batteries and balloon barrages. It is one of the difficulties in war that war is not continuous. The policy is to develop mobile reserves, and I propose to apply it generally in each region as far as is practicable. As to whether we have learned the lessons of 1940–1941, I think I can tell the House that we have. We have applied them, and in the recent raids, as I think the Minister of Health and the other Ministers concerned will agree, the machine has shown a marked improvement compared with the necessary imperfections of 1940–1941. The answer to that question is, I think, decidedly in the affirmative.

Major Gates: Before the Minister leaves that point, can he give an answer to a question which has been exercising the minds

of many of us? In my own constituency a very good N.F.S. scheme has been worked out, admittedly on paper, for part-time work which would not interfere with training. In this case the N.F.S. are surrounded by munition factories, and they would therefore be able to take part in important war work. May I ask the Minister whether such suggestions can be put forward, or whether it is his desire that there should be no part-time work of that character undertaken by the N.F.S.?

Mr. Morrison: If there are any proposals which any hon. Member or others may consider practicable for application to the Fire Service, we shall be glad to consider them. I would point out that they can also be submitted to the regional office. We are always ready to consider such suggestions, but of course we must keep hold of our policy. I have had to stop a little bit of partly admirable and partly not admirable enterprise on the part of individual firemen, who have been fixing up contracts of their own to be conducted at my fire stations. Even the Fire Brigade Union have entered into the capitalist world, fixing contracts to be carried out on my premises for which I have to pay the rates, the lighting and so forth, without any by your leave at all. After all, it still remains the National Fire Service, it does not belong to anyone but the State, and I consider that is rather an excessive degree of enterprise. As I say, we are willing to consider any practical scheme.

Mr. McEntee: Has not my right hon. Friend forgotten that local authorities still pay something?

Mr. Morrison: That is true, but they pay less than they did in past days; they are making a profit out of it, and therefore they ought not to be too unhappy in that respect. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of decontamination. We learn as we go, we modify and improvise, and I think that organisation is pretty good and is ready for the enemy if he starts to use gas. I will not say that everything is perfect—we never can be perfect when we start to face a new form of attack—but it is being revised and tightened up as we go along. Perhaps it may be convenient at this stage if I give this intimation to the House. The Government have been considering the recommendation


hitherto made to the civil population, that every good citizen should carry his gas mask. I am afraid that if the carrying of a gas mask was conclusive proof of the good citizenship of the men and women of this country, we should have to come to the conclusion that there were not many good citizens.

Sir Robert Tasker: Are we allowed to carry gas masks in this Chamber?

Mr. Morrison: That would be for Mr. Speaker to say and not for the Minister of Home Security. As I was saying, we have thought about this question. Since the entry into the war of Japan, and the consequent misfortunes we have suffered, there is now the necessity to conserve our rubber supplies. There is a certain amount of rubber in gas masks; it is not an enormous amount, but nevertheless every bit of rubber counts. At the moment children are the only people who carry their gas masks regularly, and they do so because they are compelled by the schools. It is a fact, however, that gas masks get knocked about if they are continuously carried, and there is a certain amount of damage. The Government have come to the conclusion that the right thing to do for the time being is for us to say quite frankly to the civilian population, "We do not ask you to carry gas masks day by day, and wherever you go." We think that will tend to preserve the gas masks, but we add, "At home, or wherever it is, you should know where to find your gas mask readily. You should examine and test it regularly, and you should arrange with the local authorities, who will be willing to test it, to avail yourself of these facilities." If people go away from home overnight then they should take their gas masks with them and not leave them at home. If and when the Government announce to the country that they think it is desirable, in the light of possible events, that citizens should resume carrying their gas masks, then we want them to take notice of what we ask them to do and do it. I do not anticipate an immediate gas attack, and for all we know it may never come, but it may, and we will watch the situation, and if there is reason for a change in policy, we will advise the public accordingly. I think that will be conducive to economy in gas masks, and

particularly to economy in the consumption of rubber.

Mr. Mathers: My right hon. Friend has made special reference to the wear and tear of children's gas masks. How does he intend his intimation to be interpreted by education authorities in respect of children?

Mr. Morrison: The general statement that I have made should it is suggested be applied by the education authorities in relation to children as adults are asked to apply it for themselves. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Peters-field said he thought considerable progress in Civil Defence had been made since a year ago. I join in the tribute that he paid to the good work that has been done by the regional staffs. He was not sure that civil servants were the best for this work. I think they are the best for part of it and that others are better for other work. We have in the regional offices a mixed band of civil servants, former municipal officers, business men and others who defy classification. It is a great blessing, I believe, to a civil servant to have experience in a regional office. If I found it practicable, I would turn all my civil servants out periodically and put them into the regional offices and let them have three or six months' experience, and they would come back to Whitehall better civil servants than when they went away. One of the great difficulties of Whitehall life is the fact that a civil servant tends to be there all his life administering things in the office. Often he sees the things that he is administering, but not always. I am a great believer in the principle that people should see the people they are governing and the things they are administering, and that people working in Government offices should know on the ground the people of the great provincial areas of England, Scotland and Wales. I have been able to put some of my people out and bring some of the regional people over, with their regional experience, into Whitehall. One of the earliest minutes that I sent out, on this principle of civil servants knowing what they are administering, was that every member of a shelter division should be taken to see shelters in use, and I am sure that is a good principle on which to act.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend about forms and returns, and I will do


what I can about it. I do not like endless forms and returns, but sometimes, if information is asked for and is not there, the office gets into trouble. This House is the indirect creator of most of the forms we have in the public service, because we must be ready to answer questions, and there is no way out of it. But I agree that it is a thing that wants watching, as it can become a habit. The hon. Member referred to wider powers for the scheme-making authorities. I do not want the big public authorities unduly tied up with detail and bureaucratic supervision, and I think, broadly speaking, we give them a fair amount of elbow room and head room. But the larger the proportion of the financial contribution by the State becomes, it necessarily follows that the State keeps a tighter grip on the administration. However, I will keep the point in mind and do what I can about it. We have made co-operative arrangements between Civil Defence and the Home Guard and the War Office under which we will help each other. There are certain aspects of the matter about which I am not quite happy and I am going into them with the War Office. I am very anxious that there shall be proper, co-ordinated arrangement.
I come finally to the issue of finance. It was inevitable—I make no complaint of it—that hon. Members should quote from my past history. I was not only leader of the London County Council, but I had the honoured position during a long period of negotiation of being the spokesman for all the local authorities of Great Britain. It is all very well to quote these past Parliamentary declarations of mine, and particularly the kind of bargaining that I did with the Lord President of the Council, who was very fair, equitable and, I think, just. When I was functioning as the spokesman of the local authorities of Great Britain and having dealings with my right hon. Friend and his predecessor, the local authorities were my chiefs. I was speaking to their brief, and helping them in the framing of their briefs. But when I become a Minister of the Crown and have responsibility for national affairs I must think for the Government and take into account the point of view of the Treasury, and my relations with the Treasury. That there is some difference in the angle of approach

between the leader of the County Council and the Minister of Home Security, even though in time they merge into the same person, is not a matter for surprise. The amazing thing would be if it was not so, for both had different things to do, and whoever is leader of the County Council or Minister of Home Security has to do his job well.
But I have not so much to eat my words about. Broadly speaking, this is what happened. Partly as the result of the decision of my right hon. Friend and partly as the result of further concessions that I have given since I have been at the Ministry we have got to this position, that, where the State could hold the machine effectively and have no extravagant nonsense from the other end, in most of these services, if not all, the local authorities are actually getting 100 per cent. We have gone a long way to meet the claims that they made when the Air Raid Precautions Bill was under consideration in 1937. It is a great mistake ever to make a concession, because it will get you into more trouble than if you do not. My shelter decision in October, 1940, for which I have been grumbled at, was a concession in a way. But, in fact, it had nothing to do with the financial relationship of the State and the local authorities. I came into office very soon after the blitz began, and there were all sorts of troubles about shelters, as there were bound to be. I am not blaming anyone. Every raid brought out fresh imperfections. I went round to some of the shelters. The newspapers were full of complaints about many of them, and many of the complaints were justified. I wanted brick walls put up, a lot more sanitation, food, equipment, washing things—all sorts of things I wanted done. I wanted basements strengthened, and I wanted the tubes made better. I wanted a whole lot of things done immediately, because the people were up against it. The people were good, but they would not have been good if they had not been convinced that the Government were doing their best in the matter.
I know what local authorities are; I have been, on some myself; and if I had gone to local authority after local authority and said "Would you be so good as to put some more walls up there and more sanitation here," they would have argued for a fortnight or more, and in the mean-


time the people would have suffered. For my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster to complain is amazing. He is not a good Member for the City of Westminster in the way he has been conducting himself today. Westminster was one of my reasons—I have never confessed it until now—for acting as I did; I was acting purely in the interests of that great city. It was crowded with shelters of one kind and another and there were more people in Westminster shelters who did not live in the city than people who lived in the city. I wanted Westminster to do a lot more strengthening and to go to a lot more expense, and I know what would have happened when I went to Westminster to ask them to do these things. They would have retorted, "Why should you land us in expenditure for the benefit of a population the majority of which normally lives outside?"

Sir H. Webbe: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give the House the figures of the shelters provided in Westminster on the basis of the 100 per cent. grant and those provided on the 80 per cent., for it would give a truer picture.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know, and I do not think it is relevant. It was not only the amount of shelter but the improvement and strengthening of shelters which was a costly business, and Westminster would have said it was unfair to expect them to pay for it. So instead of having any argument about it we decided, with the concurrence of the Treasury, only for the administrative reason of speed, that we should give the 100 per cent. grant. It was not in principle a financial concession but a way of getting things done and of being able to give an order which could be implemented at once.
With regard to the formula that is complained about, let us see what it means. This is a concession whereby the Government contributes an additional 50 per cent. of any excess of the Civil Defence rate over 6d. in the pound. The first condition was:
The general rate levied is not less than the average general rate levied in the same year in the same class of area.
That is to say, it should not be a case that is too bad in relation to the general run of the rate level in that class of local authority. I think that that is a reasonable condition. Another condition was:

The general rate levied in the area is at least 6d. above the rate levied for the financial year 1939–40 (in effect the pre-war level).
A third condition was:
The net approved expenditure left to be borne by local funds in respect of those civil defence services towards which grants are paid by the Ministry of Home Security (including the due proportion of the county council's expenditure and national loan charges on capital expenditure in previous years), exceeds the produce of a rate of 6d.
This condition meant that it must be actual Civil Defence expenditure.
I do not think that is ungenerous taking everything into account. It is said that it is unfair that we by this formula should indirectly take into account—which I admit we have done—the grants which the Minister of Health has made because of the general rate burden. I think I must do that because if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I are handing out money the Treasury has a legitimate complaint if we forget that it has all to come out of the same till. As between Bermondsey and Kensington, the Civil Defence rate of Bermondsey is 4.2d. and of Kensington 6.3d. That is why Kensington will get a grant and Bermondsey will not. The advances from the Minister of Health to Kensington at May, 1942, amounted to £530,000 and to Bermondsey £637,000. The total grants up to date to the Metropolitan boroughs and the City of London by the Minister of Health, not for any specific services but to preserve their rates from going beyond a certain level, is nearly £10,000,000. If I were the London Members of Parliament or the London local authorities, aggressive and close as I have been in the past in negotiations with Ministers when I led the local authorities, I would be ashamed to come to the House after the handsome way London has been treated in this respect and demand still more money from the Minister of Home Security. I would really blush to do it.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that in taking into account the grants from the Minister of Health and seeking to profit by it, my right hon. Friend is also taking into account the local rates that were levied for those services that are not now being employed, such as roads and certain other things, and that the Government are getting advantage of the money that is being paid?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is trying to make a profit out of the war.

Mr. McEntee: No.

Mr. Morrison: He is trying to profiteer in the relationship between the local authority and the State. He is not individually profiteering, and therefore it is not socially immoral, but he is really trying to profiteer in the relationship of the local authority and the State because he says that I have no right to take into account the fact that some of the social services have practically speaking come to an end. But surely if the local authorities have a grievance it can only be that the rate burden they are carrying is so grievous that they require additional relief from the State. For some reason or other they do not—either because my right hon. Friend helps them, or because the social services have been restricted, and, incidentally, possibly because they have done well out of the Board of Education through the evacuation of children. But the fact that the local authority would like somehow to get some more money out of the State is in itself no reason at all for the Minister of Home Security to increase the Civil Defence grant.
Since I left the leadership of the London County Council the rate has dropped by 9d. Mostly it was going up when I was leader, but since I have gone it has tended to go down. Take the general level of London rates. Lewisham was mentioned. What is the use of my hon. Friend coming to the House and saying that the borough is on the verge of financial bankruptcy? Lewisham is a happy place, a comfortable middle-class London suburban borough, and you will not convince anybody that it is on the verge of bankruptcy. Then what is the use of the City of Westminster, where a 1d. rate officially produces £40,000, trying to persuade me that I am treating them badly? The rate level of London boroughs is pretty good except when you come to Poplar and one or two other places where there are local circumstances and local policies which reminds me that you get to a point where you cannot get any more equalisation of rates unless you recast the structure of London local government. If the Metropolitan Boroughs wish to pursue that study they can, but happily I am not the Minister of Health and I do not wish to enter into that argument.
From what I have said it will be seen that we have really been fair because every Minister who has come into this job has given more money to the local authorities. We started with my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. He said he would work it out later—and that caused no end of excitement. We went on to the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), and he came forward a bit, and we drove him a bit further. There is no case for talking about a breach of faith. All that can be said is that the right hon. Member for Chelsea said in an optimistic moment that he did not think this service would cost more than 1d. or 2d. in the £. But the local authorities cannot say much about that, because all of them told him that he was wrong and I told him he was absolutely wrong and that I did not believe him. I am sure that he meant it, but all the same he was wrong, and has proved to be wrong.
But that does not give grounds for any talk of an undertaking or a breach of faith. When I tried to tie him up to the 2d. he did not manifest much faith in it himself, and I do not blame him; but it is not a breach of faith. The right hon. Member for Chelsea felt optimistic and wanted to give us a little comfort and cheer us up, but he did not succeed, and I think it is a pity he mentioned the 1d. and 2d. But we got some money out of him. Then my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council came. We did very well out of him. Then I came, and substantial further concessions were given. I think we had better not have any more Ministers of Home Security; we had better stop, because if we get more of them the grants will be getting up to the 150 per cent. level. The local authorities have on the whole done a good deal, and the London local authorities have done one of the best deals in the country—yes, even those in outer London. On this Civil Defence business they are getting on the average between 90 and 93 per cent. I think the House will agree that while London Members have had a day out and have made the most of it they have not made out their case, and that I have answered all the points which have been raised and have shown that the Government have not been ungenerous, and I hope that in the circumstances the House will now proceed to give us the money.

Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, to put forthwith the Questions, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates, the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, and the Air Estimates."

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1942.

CLASS I.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

out, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

HEALTH, LABOUR AND INSURANCE.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI.

TRADE, INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII.

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, ETC.).

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII.

NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS).

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,".

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX.

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS X.

WAR SERVICES.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Unclassified Services of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1942.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1942.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1942.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1940

Resolutions reported:

"1. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1941, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Navy Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–16)



10,782,690
17
10


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
12,897,167
16
3





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
382,046,091
11
7









304,943,259
7
10


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)
£384,160,568
10
0

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 16 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1.

1. "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."

[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1942; cols. 431–2, Vol. 382.]

"II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1941, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Army Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–15)



14,040,762
15
4


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
19,693,016
16
4





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
444,993,784
10
7









464,686,801
6
11


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)
£450,646,038
11
7

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 15 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1.

2. "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."

[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1942; cols. 433–4; Vol. 382.]

"III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1941, that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Air Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–11)



14,507,555
10
8


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
14,901,974
2
4





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
269,068,510
7
11









283,970,484
10
3


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)
£269,462,928
19
7

AIR ESTIMATES, 1942.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 11 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1.

3. "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."

[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1942; cols. 435–6; Vol. 382.]

Resolutions agreed to.

Major C. S. Taylor: May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether I could speak, I got up and hoped to catch your eye on the report of the Army Estimates but I was not fortunate to do so because, with great respect, you were not looking at me. Am I too late?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is too late.

WAYS AND MEANS [28th July].

Resolution reported:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £349,845,040 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Captain Crookshank.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed.—[Bill 39].

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the House that there is a very large number of Privilege Amendments. They are on pages 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 22, 28, 38, 31 and 32. Possibly the House will agree to waive its Privileges. If so, I will make a note of it with respect to the Amendments affected.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Lords Amendments to page 7, line 23, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 32, at the end, insert:

5. Payments to owners of rentcharges.

(1) Where a value payment is to be made in respect of war damage to a hereditament and at the date by reference to which the disposal of the payment is to be regulated (in this paragraph referred to as "the material date") there was subsisting a rentcharge created out of a proprietary interest (being either the fee simple or a tenancy granted for a term of a hundred years or more) in any land in the hereditament, or in any such land together with other land, a right to receive a share of the value payment shall vest in the person who was the owner of the rentcharge at that date, if he shows that the following conditions are satisfied, namely—

(a) that the amount of the rentcharge so far as attributable to land in the hereditament then subject thereto (in this paragraph referred to as "the charged land in the hereditament") exceeded the available annual value of that land as depreciated by the war damage; and
(b) that at the time when the question whether this condition is satisfied falls to be determined no building sufficient to make good the excess has been carried out, or, having regard to all the circumstances (including any undertaking required under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section seven), is likely to be carried out within a reasonable period after the time when the discharge of the value payment becomes permissible.

(2) If the said right is exercised—

(a) the amount of the share of the owner of the rentcharge shall be an amount equal to the capital equivalent of the excess mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph, so however that if the amount of the rent-charge so far as attributable to the charged land in the hereditament was greater by any sum than the available annual value of that land apart from any war damage the amount of the share shall be computed as if the said excess had been reduced by that sum; and
(b) so much of the rentcharge as is equal to the said excess shall be extinguished on the date on which the share is paid, and, as between the persons interested in the charged land in the hereditament on the one hand and in any other land subject to the rentcharge on the other hand, the proper share of the persons interested in the charged land in the hereditament of the liability for the residue of the rentcharge in


respect of any period after the extinguishment shall be treated as being an amount per annum equal to the available annual value of the charged land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage.

(3) Any question as to whether the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph are satisfied, or as to the amount of the said excess pr of the share of the owner of a rentcharge, shall be determined by agreement between the owner thereof and of the proprietary interest out of which the rent-charge was created in the charged land in the hereditament, together with any mortgagee of either of those interests, or, in default of agreement, by reference to a referee as provided by Sub-section (5) of Section nine.

(4) Where the said right is exercised effect shall be given thereto out of so much of the value payment as is payable in respect of the proprietary interest out of which the rent-charge was created in the charged land in the hereditament, and—

(a) if apart from this provision any of the value payment would be payable under Sub-section (4) of Section nine to a mortgagee of that proprietary interest, then, if the mortgage had priority to the rent-charge, it shall be payable to him and effect shall be given to the said right out of any sums to which the owner of that proprietary interest would otherwise have been entitled under the provisions of that Sub-section as to mortgagees accounting, or, if the rentcharge had priority to the mortgage the sum payable to the mortgagee shall be reduced by the amount required for giving effect to the said right;
(b) if the rentcharge was itself subject to a mortgage at the material date, Sub-section (4) of Section nine shall have effect in relation to the disposal of the share to be paid in respect of the rentcharge as it has effect in relation to so much of a value payment as is payable in respect of a mortgaged proprietary interest, with the substitution for references therein to such an interest of references to the rentcharge;
(c) Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section nine, and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of this Schedule, shall have effect subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(5) Regulations may be made under Section ten (which confers power to make regulations as to claims for payments) as to the exercise of the said right and the manner in which effect is to be given to the said right where exercised, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this sub-paragraph, regulations so made may make provision as to the matters aforesaid in cases in which the charged land in a hereditament is a part only thereof, or was in divided ownership at the material date, or in which a proprietary interest or rentcharge was subject to a mortgage at that date.

(6) As regards cases in which the title to a rentcharge, or to land subject thereto, is registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925, such provision may, without prejudice to the generality of Section one hundred and forty-four of that Act, be made by rules under that Section as may be expedient in cones-

quence of the provisions of this paragraph, and in particular for securing (by the imposition of conditions as to the exercise of 1316 said right or otherwise) that the extinguishment of any of a rentcharge by virtue of this paragraph shall not take effect without notice thereof being entered on the register.

(7) In this Act the expression "rentcharge" means a rentcharge (including a fee farm rent) subsisting at law or capable of subsisting at law, and not being an interest or charge arising under a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and means, where an apportionment of a rentcharge binding on the owner thereof has been made, each of the apportioned parts and not the entire rentcharge.

(8) For the purposes of this paragraph the "capital equivalent" of the excess referred to in head (a) of sub-paragraph (1) shall be taken to be that excess multiplied by the number of years purchase which the rent-charge might have been expected to realise on a sale thereof in the open market on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, if it had been subsisting on that day with the like incidents in all respects as it had at the material date, and the hereditament had been in the state in which it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage thereto, and the annual value of any land outside the hereditament subject to the rentcharge had been its annual value apart from any war damage.

(9) For the purposes of this paragraph the "annual value of the charged land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage" shall—

(a) if that land is coterminous with the hereditament, be taken to be five per cent. of the value of the hereditament after the occurrence of the damage as acertained for the purpose of determining the amount of the value payment;
(b) if that land is a part only of the hereditament, be determined by apportioning an appropriate part of the said percentage of the said value to that land.

(10) For the purposes of this paragraph the "annual value apart from any war damage" of any land shall, if that land was coterminous with land which constituted a contributory property or two or more contributory properties for the purposes of the instalments of contribution for the year in which the war damage to the hereditament occurred (or, if it occurred before the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and forty-one, for that year), be taken to be the contributory value or the sum of the contributory values of the property or properties for that year, and, if it was not, shall be determined by valuation made by reference—

(a) primarily to the contributory value for that year of any such contributory property or properties as aforesaid which that land comprised or of which it formed part; and
(b) subject as aforesaid, to the rent at which that land or any part thereof might have been expected to let from year to year on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, if it had been on


that day in the state in which it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage to the hereditament, or, in the case of land outside the hereditament which had then also sustained war damage, immediately before the occurrence of that damage, and the tenant undertook to pay the usual tenant's rates and taxes and the landlord undertook to bear the costs of the repairs and insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the land in a state to command that rent.

(11) For the purposes of this paragraph the "available annual value" of the charged land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage, or apart from any war damage, shall be taken to be the annual value thereof as so depreciated, or apart from any war damage, as the case may be, less the amount, so far as attributable to any of the charged land in the hereditament, of—

(a) any rentcharge having priority to the rentcharge in question to which the fee simple in that land was subject at the material date, or, where that rentcharge was created out of a tenancy of that land, to which either the fee simple therein or that tenancy or any superior tenancy thereof was subject at that date; and
(b) where that rentcharge was created out of a tenancy of that land, the rent reserved by the lease for the year in which that date fell.

(12) For the purposes of this paragraph the "amount attributable" to any land of a rent- charge, or of rent reserved by a lease, shall, where at the material date that land was the only land subject to the rentcharge, or out of which the rent issued, be taken to be the whole amount of the rentcharge payable, or of the rent reserved, for the year in which that date fell, and, where it was not, shall be determined by apportioning or allocating to that land so much (if any) of that whole amount as may be appropriate, having regard—

(a) primarily, to any apportionment or allocation of that rentcharge or rent which may have been made otherwise than so as to be binding on the owner of that rent-charge or on the landlord, as the case may be, before the occurrence of any war damage to any of the land subject to that rentcharge or rent; and
(b) subject as aforesaid, to the proportion borne by the annual value apart from any war damage of that land to the annual value apart from any war damage of the other land subject to that rentcharge or rent.

(13) In the application of this paragraph to Northern Ireland there shall be substituted for the reference to the Settled Land Act, 1925, a reference to the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, and, as regards cases in which land in Northern Ireland is subject to a rentcharge, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may by rules make such provision as may be expedient for securing (by the imposition of condtions as to the exercise of the said right or otherwise) that the extinguishment of any of a rentcharge by virtue of this paragraph shall not take effect without notice thereof being registered in the proper office for the registration of deeds or titles, as the case may require.

6. Payments to superiors and creditors in ground annuals.

(1) The last preceding paragraph shall extend to Scotland subject to the modifications specified in the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) For any reference to a rentcharge created out of the fee simple in any land there shall be substituted a reference to a feuduty or ground annual payable by the owner of the fee simple in such land; references to the owner of a rentcharge shall be construed accordingly, and references to a rentcharge created out of a tenancy shall not apply.

(3) The right conferred by sub-paragraph (1) on a superior or the creditor in a ground annual to receive a share of a value payment shall not be exercisable until—

(a) in the case where the feuduty or ground annual is payable in respect of the charged land in the hereditament and also of other land, the part of such feuduty or ground annual attributable to the charged land in the hereditament has been allocated thereon; and
(b) the feuduty or ground annual or the part thereof so allocated, as the case may be, in so far as it exceeds the annual value of the charged land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage, has been discharged.

(4) Where for the purposes of this paragraph a feuduty or a ground annual is required to be allocated or a feuduty or a ground annual or a part thereof so allocated is required to be discharged, the superior or the creditor in the ground annual shall execute and record in the appropriate register of sasines—

(a) a memorandum specifying the sum to be allocated and describing particularly or by reference the land on which it is to be allocated; or, as the case may be,
(b) a discharge of the feuduty or ground annual or part specifying the extent to which the same is discharged and describing particularly or by reference the land so disburdened;
and any such allocation or discharge shall be binding on all having interest.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This long Amendment carries out a decision of this House during the Committee stage that the Bill should be amended by enabling owners of rent-charges in certain circumstances to claim a share of a value payment. When the Bill was drafted and passed by this House, it was thought that the rentcharge was normally covered by the site value, but evidence was brought to our notice by several hon. Members interested in this subject that there were many cases, particularly in Lancashire and Northern Ireland, where the rentcharge was, in


effect, secured on the building, and if the building was destroyed and not rebuilt, the owner of the rentcharge had a very great claim to be considered in the distribution of the value payment. That principle was accepted in the Committee stage. It was a rather complicated matter to work out in detail, and the Amendment which I now move sets out the machinery.
Briefly, the rentcharge owner is entitled to come in and claim, if the annual value of the damaged property is below the value of the rentcharge secured upon it.' He has also to show that rebuilding is unlikely, because, if rebuilding takes place, he will be back where he was before. If he gets a share of the value payment, that reduces the rentcharge pro tanto. There are very great complexities and I will indicate some of them. A rentcharge may cover several properties, only one of which may be damaged, and you have to arrange for a proportional allocation. There may be different owners of property covered by a single rentcharge. There may be different owners of rentcharge on a single property. The area covered by the rent-charge may not coincide with the Schedule A contributory areas. There may be a mortgage in front of the rent-charge or a mortgage behind it, or the rentcharge itself may be mortgaged. After that brief indication of the complexities, I am sure that the House will realise that this has been a complicated matter.

Mr. Goldie: I do not process to be an expert on rentcharge, and I cannot therefore express an opinion as to how the Amendment will meet those very great difficulties. This matter was brought to my notice by the Law Society, with which I am very closely associated in Manchester, and I cannot allow this Amendment to pass without asking permission to express to the Chancellor and to the Law Officers our deep appreciation of the kindness they have shown us in considering a matter which is of very great importance.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that many of the remaining Amendments are consequential.

The Attorney-General: Most of them are consequential or drafting in character. One or two might require a little explanation, but none raises a point of principle and if the House is content to treat them as consequential they could be taken together.

Mr. Speaker: I will take them en bloc.

The Attorney-General: I do not think any of those with which I am dealing and which apply to Part I require explanation unless explanation be asked for. Others affect the Board of Trade, and I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend can say the same as I have said.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): There is nothing very revolutionary in those which affect Part II and they can be dealt with in the same way.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939 (CONTINUANCE).

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of Subsection (1) of Section eleven of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, praying that the said Act as amended by any subsequent enactment be continued in force for a further period of one year beginning with the twenty-fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-two.
I do not think that any Member would either require or welcome a long explanation of this Motion. Under the ordinary procedure, the Emergency Powers Act would expire on 23rd August, and it is obviously necessary to prolong it by means of an Order in Council for a further year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, praying that the said Act as amended by any subsequent enactment be continued in force for a further period of one year beginning with the twenty-fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-two.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment Order, 1942, dated 17th July, 1942, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 22nd July, be approved."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Would the Financial Secretary to the Treasury give us, in a very few words, the object and the purpose of this clearing Order?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Certainly, Sir. The House will know that, under the existing agreements, the sterling sums, which were paid into the Anglo-Spanish clearing house, allocated in fixed proportions the various sub-accounts to be used for specific purposes, such as the payment for current imports into Spain from the sterling area, the transfer from Spain of items of current revenue, repayment of arrears of debt which had accumulated before the outbreak of the civil war, and amortisation and service of the British Government loan. During war-time my right hon. Friend would be the first to see that it is difficult sometimes to make these payments according to the specific allocations. Therefore this Order makes certain modifications in the existing Orders so that there is some fluidity as between these various funds. It is not a matter of any very great consequence. It is important that there should be some fluidity of sterling balances in order to enable them to pay the liabilities to be met, as they mature.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: With regard to that fluidity, I understand that it does not remove from our control the divergence between the different payments. We retain our powers in the matter. It is not a matter of our parting with our powers to the Spanish Government?

Captain Crookshank: Oh no, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment Order, 1942, dated 17th July, 1942, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 22nd July, be approved.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): I beg to move,
That the Coal (Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1942, dated 3rd July, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 9th July, be approved.
I think the House is entitled to a brief explanation of the reasons for this Order. It provides for a levy of 3s. per ton on all coal supplied, in addition to a levy of 7d. a ton imposed by the Order of 3rd June and approved in this House on 25th June last. The present levy is for two purposes. It is in order to pay for the Green award, which was estimated to cost 2s. 6d. a ton. Hon. Members will know that the Green award was given by the Committee set up to consider an application by the Miners Federation of Great Britain for an increase of wages. I may say that the award is certainly the best award I remember, in my long association with the mining industry. I remember that 30 years ago, in 1912, Parliament refused to put into a Bill a minimum of 5s. for men and 2s. for boys. Under this award a minimum of 83s. per week for underground workers and 78s. a week for surface workers is laid down, certainly a good deal of progress in the intervening period. Nobody in this House would want to oppose the Coal (Charges) Order because they recognise that relatively the miners have been underpaid. We are hoping that this will not merely maintain tranquillity in the industry, but that it will be an encouragement to all engaged in the mining industry to do all they can to see that we get the increased production which we know to be so urgently necessary.
The other 6d. is to be used to meet the increased cost of production in certain coalfields due to circumstances peculiar to those coalfields. That makes the whole of the 3s. I think the House is entitled to know that the proceeds of this levy are being collected into a central fund in order that the individual undertakings may be paid the actual amount of the increased wages due, and in order that those particular districts shall have the benefit of this 6d. per ton. The administration


of the coal charges levy has been altered by taking it away from the Central Council and putting it under the jurisdiction of the present Ministry, and at the moment consideration is being given as to how best to apply the money. I will leave the matter there; if there should be any question which any hon. Member desires to raise, I shall be only too pleased to try and supply answers.

Mr. James Griffiths: I will not detain the House beyond a moment or two, but I want to add my word of tribute to that of the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the Green Award. The best comment I saw on that was a cartoon in one of the London papers which showed two colliers, one of whom was saying to the other, "Aye, they will be paying us wages shortly." It is a pity that this award was not made a long time ago. It would have helped to solve the coal, problem. I cordially welcome the Order on behalf of the Miners' Federation and of my colleagues sitting here. If 20 years ago we had created a central pool in which the differences between pit and pit could have been evened out in order to bring some kind of unification to the mining industry, I do not think there would have been a problem to-day. The history of the last 20 years is a history of failure to tackle this position. The Miners' Federation has often been accused of being wrong, but if there is one thing about which they were right, it is this. Twenty years ago we put forward a suggestion that a pool should be created in order to bring unification into the industry, and now we are doing it, 20 years too late. I welcome it very much, and I hope that this central pool will only be a beginning, and that the Government will realise that to have a healthy mining industry it is necessary to unify it. For these reasons I greatly welcome and support this Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Coal (Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1942, dated 3rd July, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 9th July, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND PLANNING (DR. F. C. C. CURTIS).

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Mr. Graham White: I desire to raise as briefly as possible the strange case of Dr. F. C. C. Curtis, who until the 30th June last was employed in the Ministry of Works and Planning. I always hesitate very much about raising the affairs of a private citizen in this House, but the proceedings which lead me to raise this matter to-day seem to call for the very serious consideration of Parliament. In the first place, an injustice, as I hold, has been done to a British citizen. In the second place, certain proceedings have occurred which seem to cast discredit upon the whole of the administrative machinery, and further a question seems to be raised as to whether there can be two classes of British citizenship, and whether citizens against whom no one can say a word of reprobation, who in every respect have carried out to the uttermost their duties as citizens, can be discharged without reason and with a stigma upon them.
It is necessary, I am afraid, that I should go into the matter in some little detail, and I will do so as briefly as I possibly can. There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. Dr. F. C. C. Curtis is the son of Francis John Curtis, who was born in 1861 in Blandford, Dorset. His mother was a German and, through no fault of his own he was born at Frankfurt in 1903. His birth was duly registered at a British consulate in Frankfurt. In 1914 his father, who at that time held a professorship in a German university, acquired through the processes of German law, dual citizenship. He was and is a British citizen; he never lost his British citizenship, although he had dual citizenship. The child, now Dr. Curtis, at that time was about 11 years of age, and he also acquired dual citizenship for a time. He never ceased at any time to be a British citizen. He completed his education in Germany and obtained employment there. He married a German wife and in 1933, when as is within the recollection of the House the persecution of the Jews began, he lost his employment and was driven from Germany. He reached the shores of this country, which


at that time was welcoming the victims of the persecution of the Jews. It will be seen therefore that his antagonism to Hitler and all his works is of longer standing than that of many people whose names will readily occur to hon. Members to-day.
Coming to this country after a distinguished academic career in which he gained a diploma in architecture and engineering, he found employment for one year in the architectural office of the Southern Railway. For two years after that he was employed as assistant to a distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society of British Architects. He at the same time became an associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a body which only admits British citizens to its membership. He became a chartered architect. He received an appointment as a lecturer in architecture at the University of Liverpool, and is still a member of the staff of that institution. In February, 1940, he was given leave of absence by the University of Liverpool in order to take up war work. One can easily imagine how eager he was to do that. His first employment was with Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, and it is interesting to note that the Minister of Supply found no difficulty in giving this person a permit to work under the Official Secrets Act.
No question was raised at this stage, or at any other stage, as to the fitness of this man to carry out the duties of a British citizen. He was employed in the first instance for one year in the designing office at a Royal Ordnance Factory. At a subsequent stage he left and did similar work in designing and lay-out in another Royal Ordnance Factory. Subsequently he had some part in the planning of three other Royal Ordnance Factories. At the end of 1941 it became necessary to make an immediate appointment to the Ministry of Works and Planning, and the Director-General, after having full inquiries made, employed Dr. Curtis. He received a letter of appointment on 12th February, 1941, signed by Mr. H. Hinchliffe Davies, appointing him as a salary of £860. He had to give up his work with Alexander Gibb and Sons at two days' notice, so important was the work for which he had been engaged. He was appointed as deputy to the chief allocation officer who has to deal with the allocation of building trade labour

for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that position he continued to hold.
It might have been thought that if at some stage there was some doubt as to the propriety of employing this man in a public Department some inquiry should have been made to establish what was his attitude of mind towards this country and its enemies. No such inquiry was made. In fact so great was the confidence in him that he was employed in interviewing applicants for posts in the office. It is fair to say that he carried out his duties with enthusiasm and to the satisfaction of his chief. He was appointed by the Director-General and I am told that when he left the Director-General was exasperated. His was very exacting and responsible work and he worked at all hours in the evening and at week-ends.
On 5th June this year a letter was sent to Alexander Gibb & Son to say that after 30th June he would not be employed by the Ministry of Works and Planning. He never had any agreement with Alexander Gibb & Sons. His appointment, although asked for by the Director-General, was never confirmed but the usual arrangement was made that he would be put on one month's notice by Alexander Gibb & Son. On 9th June Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners inquired whether the letter meant that he would be employed directly by the Ministry from 30th June. The reply was that there would be no employment for Dr. Curtis after 30th June. It is relevant to inquire here whether he was in fact the best man for this job. He was the best man who was available at the time of his appointment, after all inquiries had been made. Further it is interesting to note that when, apparently, it had been decided that his services were no longer required a whole string of applicants from the Central Register were interviewed and were found to be unsuitable. He has been replaced now by a younger man, who may very well be his equal on paper. I think his qualifications on paper are certainly as good as those of Dr. Curtis, but he will require some months to become familiar with the technique of the work of his Department, which Dr. Curtis has built up.
Dr. Curtis, on 30th June left the ser vice of the Ministry without an explanation in writing and with a stigma which


it is impossible for him to remove—a quite unjustified stigma. He received on 2nd July a calling-up notice for the Army. I want to state quite emphatically that there is no question here of this man wanting to escape from military service. He wants in this fight to be employed, as every Britisher worthy of the name wishes to be employed, in the place where he can render the best service, but the idea that a man of this capacity, who has been doing work of this responsibility and is, if not the very best man, at least one of the very best men in the country for it, should be put as a private in the Army is, as I said in my opening sentence, contrary to national policy as hitherto understood. I wish to ask whether there are two kinds of British citizens and whether there is any sanction, residing in anybody in the Treasury, which says that a man who has done all the duties of a British citizen is not to enjoy all the rights?
I also want to put one or two other questions which are relevant to these lamentable proceedings. If he is not fit to work for the country, why was he allowed to join the Home Guard the moment it was formed in 1940? Should no account be taken of his honour and patriotism? Should nothing be said and no account be taken of his part as a member of the Home Guard in the Liverpool blitzes, which were very severe? Why should he be enrolled on the Central Register and his name circulated to all Departments? What can be said for the Ministry of Supply who gave permission for him to be employed under the Official Secrets Act. Why should he be called as a juryman to the Liverpool Assizes, in order to pronounce judgment on other fellow-citizens? Above all, what can be said for the Ministry of Works and Planning, who employed him, indirectly it is true, in most important work, on work of so much secrecy and of a confidential nature, which he discharged to the satisfaction of everybody concerned? In fact, since this unfortunate happening people have come forward and praised the work he has done, and have spoken of the money he has saved and have described his work as brilliant. I submit that an injustice has been done to this man and ask that steps should be taken to remove it. Goings on of this kind cast discredit on administration. If the facts are not in

dispute, what can be the cause of what has happened? I say with great reluctance that the facts seem to me to lead inevitably to the conclusion that there was some dispute within the Department, between the Establishment Branch and the Executive Branch.
It may be a good thing to have a rule with regard to nationality, but if so let it be administered, and administered properly throughout, so that no one can say it is used not in accordance with English methods and traditions. It is common knowledge to everyone that if there is such a rule it is frequently honoured in the breach. Everyone has heard of the Beaverbrook plan, under which enemy aliens in considerable numbers were brought out of camps to make the very machines which were to be used against the enemy. I hope the House will agree with me that there is a case for inquiry and restitution. I am glad to have the advantage of the presence of the Leader of the House. I venture to express the hope that he will have an inquiry made into this matter and deal with it as seems to him best.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I desire to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White). Dr. Curtis is a member of the staff of Liverpool University, one of the Universities which I have the privilege of representing in this House. He has done valuable service there, as I believe he has in all the tasks that he has undertaken. From nowhere have I heard any word of criticism of his work or of his character. So far as I have been able to go into this case, there has been no suggestion of any fault to be found with his personal character, with his record, with his aims or principles, or with his patriotism. The whole difficulty seems to have arisen from some ruling—whether it is a departmental ruling or whether it goes further, I do not know—which has been applied in a way that necessarily, in such a case as this, involves casting a serious slur on the character, of an honourable man, who has already done very great service to this country. I think the Government should take this opportunity to undo, as far as possible, the harm which has been done, and to remove any slur from the character of this honourable citizen, who has worked


well for his country, and who has suffered greatly from what I believe to have been an injustice.
If there is a ruling affecting the ancestry of British citizens employed in the Government service, it ought to be a public ruling. If it were carried out consistently, none of us would be pleased at the consequences. Think of how many people who have lent lustre to our country have had German ancestry. In this case there is no suggestion of the sentiments or the views or the beliefs of the man being called into question. Yet the ruling is not applied systematically in all Government Departments. There is not only the instance which my hon. Friend has given, but in this House we have had the case raised of distinguished Germans who have been, and still are, quite rightly, employed by the B.B.C. or the Ministry of Information, as the case may be, and who are doing very good service. They are intensely opposed to the whole Nazi regime; they themselves have suffered injustice and have been made exiles, because of their race or their' beliefs; and they are, very rightly, employed in specialist work for which they are peculiarly fitted. If it is possible to waive such a ruling in their case, surely it should be done in this case, when the man has been tested for years in work of the greatest importance to the Government, and when his services are required by his colleagues and his superiors.
It should surely be possible in such a case for his services to be retained, not merely in the interests of the man but in the interests of the country. The matter is not merely one of the immediate interests of the country, in getting the work performed, but it goes further than that. If there be some old ruling, made with the best of objects, but which, if carried out mechanically, involves disadvantage to the country and injustice to the individual, I hope that that ruling will be revised, and that we shall have a clear pronouncement from the Government, which will not only clear the character and reputation of an admirable public servant, but will make it clear to everyone that we have no distinction of citizenship, no second-class citizenship reserved for those who happen to have, on one side or the other, a certain amount of foreign ancestry.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): I thank the hon. Member for

East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) for raising this question, and so giving me an opportunity of dealing with the specific matter of the employment of Mr. Curtis by my Department, and of his discharge. On the wider question, I cannot answer: I can only answer about this particular man. If there is any suggestion of a slur being cast upon him, let me say that, so far as his services were concerned, we have nothing against him. There is no stigma as far as he is concerned. As to the facts, our interpretation is not exactly that of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. The hon. Member has already asked me two Questions on the subject this month, and I have answered them fairly fully, but I could not then give all the information which I have the opportunity of giving now.
Let me recite two or three dates, to show the attitude of my Ministry. The Director of the building programme was required in February of this year to appoint an assistant, and the application of Mr. Frederick Charles Curtis, then employed by Messrs. Alexander Gibb and Partners, was considered. The Ministry of Labour and National Service were asked whether they would allocate Mr. Curtis to my Department. The Ministry of Labour, acting on information furnished to the Central Register by Mr. Curtis, to the effect that the present nationality of both his parents was German, advised us that he did not satisfy the regulations governing the nationality of persons to be employed in Government Departments, and recommended the engagement of another candidate. The need for an assistant was, however, so urgent that, there being no suitable candidate but Mr. Curtis available at that particular moment in the opinion of my, executive officer, it was decided to utilise his services for the time being. He was lent by his employers—he was never put on our staff—on a repayment basis. Subsequently, he and his employers were informed that his services were no longer required, and during the period when he was under notice by my Department he was called up for military service.

Colonel Stanley: At the time Dr. Curtis was engaged was he ever told that there was this bar to, his employment, and that his employment in the Ministry was bound, therefore, to be of a temporary character?

Mr. Hicks: I think he was told that the matter of his eligibility for employment was being investigated by my Ministry.

Colonel Stanley: From the hon. Gentleman's statement it would appear that this was not a matter of investigation, but that Dr. Curtis was only taken because at the moment they could not find anybody else, and that they intended to turn him out as soon as they could.

Mr. Hicks: We were discussing it with the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Graham White: I have a copy of the letter of appointment here. It says nothing about the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westmorland (Colonel Stanley); and Dr. Curtis was invited to apply for this job.

Mr. Hicks: Mr. Curtis was born on 9th August, 1903, at Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany, the son of Francis J. Curtis, a British subject born in 1861 at Blandford in Dorset. The latter had become, about 1903, a professor in English at Frankfurt Academy and had married a German woman. In July, 1914, Professor Curtis sent a letter accepting the Chair in English at Frankfurt University, thereby according to his own statement—I have his letter—becoming a German civil servant and a German subject. He was required afterwards to declare that he had accepted German citizenship and this he did on the 5th or 6th October, 1914, regarding it as a confirmation of his declaration in July, 1941. The question arises, therefore, whether Professor Curtis became a German subject before or after the outbreak of the last war. That is the point. Did he become a German citizen prior to the outbreak of war or after the outbreak of war in August, 1914? The declaration of July, 1914, was thus confirmed in October, 1914. If he became a German in July, 1914, he lost his British nationality which he took no steps to recover.

Mr. White: May I help my hon. Friend on this point? I am informed that at no time did Dr. Curtis lose his British nationality.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is a question of law.

Mr. White: In 1939 conditions became intolerable and he was anxious to leave

Germany. His wife was taken ill and died in Germany and, the war coming on, the old gentleman was not able to escape. The British passports were prepared by the Consul officials in Frankfurt.

Mr. Hicks: It is a question of whether he was a German citizen or a British citizen and the statement I am making is that by his acceptance of the Chair in English at the University of Frankfurt and by his own letter Professor Curtis accepted German nationality and confirmed it later in the year in October. If Professor Curtis voluntarily assumed German nationality in 1914 before the outbreak of war he lost his British nationality, but if after the outbreak of war he is deemed to have retained his British nationality. Professor Curtis's wife became a British subject on her marriage to Professor Curtis and if Professor Curtis lost his nationality in 1914, then Mrs. Curtis also lost hers. She married him while he was a Britisher. In those circumstances I feel certain that my Department has acted in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the Regulations laid down by the Treasury. It not only applies to my Department but to each Department.
I have not been responsible for the complications arising out of this matter. It is Professor Curtis himself who is responsible for the difficulty in which I have been placed and I am casting no aspersions about the man himself or his qualifications. The Treasury laid down these Regulations which require that an applicant for temporary employment in the Civil Service should not only be a British subject but also the child of a person who is a British subject. That is the Treasury instruction applying to all Departments to anyone who seeks employment in the Civil Service. Professor Curtis is still in Germany, and Mr. F. C. C. Curtis, that is the gentleman about whom we are talking now, married a German-born woman, and her parents are, presumably, still in Germany. It is clear to my Department, therefore, that there is such doubt as to the nationality of Professor Curtis and consequently as to the eligibility of Mr. F. C. C. Curtis's services in a Government Department, as to warrant the refusal of the Ministry to employ him. That is all I have to say about the matter. He was invited to be loaned to us from Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners. Our first inquiry was to the Ministry of Labour asking


whether they would allocate him to my Department and then came the Treasury Regulation under which we are not entitled to employ aliens if there is a British subject to do the work required.

Mr. White: He is not an alien.

Mr. Hicks: After inquiries were set on foot he was never employed by my Department but loaned to my Department by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners. When it became clear that he was unable to satisfy conditions as to British parentage to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Labour and the Regulations of the Treasury, there was no alternative for my Department but to ask him to leave. I repeat what I said before. We do not complain about his capabilities, his quality or his industry and we have no desire to say anything against him in any shape or form. As far as we are concerned he was a very competent and capable man while working in that capacity.

Lieutenant Butcher: When listening to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning I found myself getting more and more involved in what I can only refer to as red tape. I had the feeling that his greatest contribution was robust commonsense in all the problems he tackled. But here we find a distinguished architect—and I pay my Friends opposite the tribute that they would not advocate the claims of any person who was not thoroughly reliable and loyal to this country—who can be employed by Alexander Gibb and Partners on most important secret and confidential work, and who has to be discharged after previous appointment, because of some Treasury Minute. I really cannot see that we can ever make any progress in that way nor can the hon. Gentleman expect to show this House why, on the one hand, people who are not eligible for work with the Ministry of Works and Planning, can be employed by private firms and in ordnance factories, and, on the other hand, why competent architects are to be discharged simply because of some Treasury rule.

Sir S. Cripps: I think I might dispose of what appears from the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Lieutenant Butcher) to be a little misunderstanding. There is a very great difference between

the way in which a person is employed by a contractor on a confidential job and the way he is employed in the Civil Service. A number of confidential matters are necessarily circulated in the Civil Service, to which civil servants must have access if they are to carry on their jobs. One of the most important factors in all Civil Services—and this applies to countries all over the world, and I have seen lots of them in Russia—is the question of security. When one has to have regard to the question of security, it is almost the universal rule to have some Regulations as regards the nationality of civil servants. In this case, as my hon. Friend told the House, there is a Regulation. It is not Treasury red tape but a necessary Regulation to give security in the British Civil Service.

Mr. White: By whom was it made?

Sir S. Cripps: It was made by the Treasury. It is a Defence of the Realm Regulation, but the Treasury are the people to look into these matters.

Mr. White: It has no sanction in law.

Sir S. Cripps: I thought my hon. Friend meant who originated it and where did it come from.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can it be relaxed in individual cases by the Treasury?

Sir S. Cripps: I was going to explain that the only general relaxation of any of these rules is that, if you absolutely cannot find a British subject who can do the job required, and can find anyone else to do it, you may, with special sanction, use that other person. But that, of course, is only in very special cases indeed. In this case someone else has been found to do the job and he is doing it. The difficulty arises from the fact that during a certain period of time this man was borrowed from Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners to do the job. That method of borrowing people, which is not a regular method in the Civil Service, but a war emergency method, is liable to make what appears to be an anomaly in such a case as this. When a man is to be a member of the Civil Service as a regular civil servant, one must observe the rules of the Service. That is the reason why, in this case, this gentleman does not qualify under the rules.

Mr. Harvey: But surely in this case there was no question of his becoming a regular civil servant? He was on temporary war service; he was already doing the job, and if it was wrong for him to have access to confidential documents, he ought never to have been employed by the Department at all. He was employed for months.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not saying whether he ought to have been employed or not. That is a matter which one might possibly and quite legitimately criticise, but the moment the question had to be decided definitively he could no longer be employed in the Civil Service. It does not matter whether temporarily or permanently—that is merely a matter of establishment. The difficulty and confusion have arisen here because he was in the anomalous position, as a servant of Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, of working in a Civil Service Department. Whether that was wise or not, I do not know. I do not know the circumstances and I cannot go into them, but there is not the slightest reason why anyone should think that Mr. Curtis is other than perfectly honourable and straight forward and a great friend of Britain and a most loyal and patriotic man. Nobody should think other than that because this has happened. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no accusation of any sort or kind in that way. It is merely that, under the rules for the Civil Service, people born in the curious circumstances in which Mr. Curtis was born are not eligible.

Mr. I. Thomas: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why the nation should be deprived of the services of this man?

Sir S. Cripps: I have explained that for the sake of security there must be rules and when there are rules there is always someone who may happen to be left out.

Mr. Thomas: I should have thought that the rules were made for the State and not the State for the rules.

Colonel Stanley: The only reason I intervene is not that I know anything about this case or know Mr. Curtis, but that I have a certain connection with the University of which he is a member, and I find the explanation given to-day most unsatisfactory. I quite accept the Lord

Privy Seal's statement. You must have regulations of this kind from the point of view of security. I accept the view that it may be necessary to say, as the Treasury have said, that from the point of view of security no alien—and I accept the Government's statement that apparently Mr. Curtis is a German subject—should be admitted to enter the service of a Government Department. But the fact is that this man, by a roundabout means, was admitted. [An HON. MEMBER: "For two years."]

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. Pym.]

Colonel Stanley: The fact is that he was borrowed from civilian contractors, although the Department may have got round the Treasury regulations, and was given exactly the same access to official secrets and was, therefore, exactly the same danger to security as if he had been taken on as a regular civil servant. I submit that it was grossly improper for the Ministry of Works and Planning to seek to evade the Treasury regulation, which had been necessarily imposed for security reasons, by this roundabout method of getting him in. Not only was it grossly improper, but it was grossly unfair to the individual unless at the time he was taken on he was told of the conditions.
I understand that before he was brought into the Department, the Department knew his parents were of German origin. They knew that from his own application form, they knew that he was not eligible under the Treasury regulation. In order to get round that, because they could not for the moment find anybody else, they adopted this device of borrowing him from civilian contractors. Yet they had it at the back of their minds that if and when they could find another suitable applicant to whom this bar did not apply they would sack Mr. Curtis—or at least, not sack him, but send him back to civilian employment and bring in somebody else. That was unfair to Mr. Curtis unless he was told at the time of these circumstances and unless, when he allowed himself to be borrowed, he had full knowledge that as soon as somebody else was found to


replace him he would have to return to ordinary employment. It was merely a matter of ordinary decency, honesty and fair dealing that in taking a man on under these circumstances he should have been told. If my impression of this case is wrong I hope the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will point out my error and make me more convinced than I am at the moment that this gentleman has not been treated in a way which has exposed him quite unnecessarily to difficulties and embarrassments.

Sir Percy Harris: I was glad to hear the words of wisdom that fell from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westmorland (Colonel Stanley). I think the Lord Privy Seal will agree that a grave in justice has been done to a very honourable man. Under the circumstances a Government Department, knowing that at the earliest opportunity it would get rid of him and do harm, should not have engaged him. Having given loyal service, it does not consort with the general English idea of justice that so distinguished an architect, a lecturer at Liverpool University and a man worthy of being an associate of the Royal Institution of British Architects should have been taken away from civil employment, knowing that at the Government's convenience he would be put on the scrap-heap—

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure my right hon. Friend does not want to exaggerate. It is not correct to say that he was thrown on the scrap-heap; he was borrowed from Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners and was returned to that employment.

Sir P. Harris: Then it is a little bit worse. I have understated the case. He was then immediately called up for service, which was obviously done by arrangement with the Ministry of Labour. Within a fortnight of leaving his employment he was called up, although I understand he was quite willing to join the Army and that there is no difficulty there. All the same, I think there ought to be some inquiry. The one good thing that has come out of this is the generous testimonial that the Lord Privy Seal and the Parliamentary Secretary have paid to this man's character and services. That is some amends for what, I think, is a rather unfortunate story.

Mr. Hicks: Perhaps I can make the matter more clear. I can only say I was not aware that at the time this man was employed by my Ministry on loan from Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, he had any doubts about his nationality. As soon as he came to my Department inquiry was started to see whether he met the requirements of the regulation satisfactorily. As soon as it was discovered that he was not able to do so, we terminated his employment, and I think we ought to be congratulated for taking the step we did.

Colonel Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that in introducing somebody into this position of great confidence, where the security Regulations have to apply, his Department did not make inquiries first as to whether they were satisfying the requirements, but let him into the Department and only then started to inquire as to the nationality of his parents?

Mr. Hicks: I do not want it to be assumed that we are neglectful, but there was some doubt about the nationality, and because of that doubt, inquiries were immediately set on foot. The question of ability does not enter into the matter at this stage; nor does the other question of his being called to the Services; that entirely depends upon his age, and has nothing to do with his having been lent to the Ministry by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners and nothing to do with his employment during that period. To raise those matters seems to me to import into the temporary use of this gentleman and then his discharge something that I do not think is really warranted. The simple fact was that he was invited to come in, because of certain qualifications he was known to possess, to give assistance. He came in, not to build up the Department, as the hon. Member for East Birkenhead said, but to give assistance to a man already there. He worked in that way for a time and then inquiries were made—honest, genuine, and with no prejudice. The only condition under which the Ministry are entitled to place anyone in employment and on their pay roll is set out in the Regulations. He was not able to satisfy the terms of the Regulations. He made a complaint to me that we were not speedy enough from the time he was employed. He has not been employed for two years. It was in February of this


year that he was invited to come over and at the end of May, I think, he was discharged. He was not with the Ministry for many months.

Colonel Stanley: What about the danger to security during the months the Ministry were employing him?

Mr. Hicks: It may be that there has been danger to security in his work for a private firm—I do not know. I do not make that charge. As far as I know, there was no danger to security while he was in my Ministry, but he did not satisfy the condition under which he could be made a civil servant. Therefore, obviously the only thing for the Ministry to do was to terminate the arrangement

with Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners and turn him back.

Mr. Graham White: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, during the last month, at the time he was not employed by the Ministry of Works and Planning but engaged in working there, he was not in the process of being appointed deputy to the Director of Allocation who was employed part-time on other work with another Ministry and also in connection with building?

Mr. Hicks: If his nationality would have satisfied the conditions of the Regulations, certainly he would have been retained.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.